![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I think a tipping point has been successfully reached. This article is supposed to be a summary of the history of the controversy, not a place to rehash the detailed POV of Diop. However the Black Hypothesis section quickly grew into a Diop-rehash. To accommodate the notability of this debunked theory, we created the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, so that all the detail could be wallowed in over there at length without distracting this article. That worked well for a few days, but then Diop's supporters duplicated all that detail back into this section as well, which is now well and truly WP:UNDUE. The answer here is to reduce the entire Herodotus block of text down to two sentences, and to keep the detail at the main Black Egyptian Hypothesis article. Ditto the Qustul detail - it is notable and belongs at the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, but should be mentioned here in summary rather than duplicated in detail. However for this to work the editors with the Diop-focus need to respect the policies, to put the detail in the appropriate article only, and to stop the duplication. Wdford ( talk) 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
References
Egypt pg 15
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).^^^ An example of a Eurocentric editor who cannot accept what contemporary mainstream scholarship has concluded on the matter. Gatto's study is dealing with ARCHAEOLOGY, which is ONE major piece of the puzzle that is needed to indicate the bio-cultural origins of the ancient Egyptians/Nile Valley. This was NOT a piece on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and the source is NOT cited in this main article to indicate race. This study concludes what has been consistently indicated by contemporary research for the past three decades but never bolded stated.
None the less you points are focusing on semantics and are irrelevant to article as the study is only cited to indicate what is it was FOCUSED ON which is the archaeological evidence in 4th paragraph of the modern scholarship section. I however will really like to debate you on your fallacious interpretations on her piece over on the HISTORUM forums [1]. If you PLEASE create a thread presenting this argument over there I will enter it. Asante90 ( talk) 19:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. My main interest here is on the pre'history'/predynastic of Ancient Egypt. I must say that the interpretations of @Wdford on the Gatto 2011 study are incorrect, but understandable seeing that he may not really be abreast of the topic itself and so wouldn't really know what Gatto meant by her statements nor the context she was basing her arguments on. So I will make it as simple as possible:
The Earliest Ancient Egyptian cultures particularly in the Valley (Upper and Middle Egypt- Tasian, Badarian and Early Naqada) were essentially the NORTHERMOST, YOUNGER variants of SAME CULTURE GROUP that extended all the way from regions of the 6th Cataract deep in the Sudan to Middle Egypt an most of the adjourning desert east an west of the valley. This culture group (possibly made of diverse peoples) had its origins clearly south of Egypt and came into Egypt as a fully-fetched culture during the 5th-4th Millennium BC mostly from a desiccating Eastern Saharan entering the Egyptian Nile that was at that time mostly sparsely populated. These groups are what archaeologists now call Tasians, Badarians and (Early) Naqadians. When I say they were all essentially of same Culture group, I mean they were so similar in almost every cultural trait (same settlement pattern, subsistence pattern, pottery, material cultural artifacts, burial traditions etc). This cultural Group have been called various names by various scholars ('Nubian' Group, Saharo-Nilotic Group, Pastoral Tradition of the Nile, Middle Nile Neolithic etc); they were as I said MOSTLY a DIVERSE group of TROPICAL Africans indigenous to Northeastern/Nilotic/Saharn Africa (probably mainly speaking Afrasan and Nilosaharan Languages). THIS IS THE MAINSTREAM VIEW, and the evidences an sources (I can provide tens of them if asked) is OVERWHELMING on this narrative. Let me just however give 2 other sources from Gatto to provide some context to her above study:
"The relationship between the Early A-Group,the Final Neolithic of the Western Desert, and the Badarian already came to light in the recent past(Gatto 2002). All of them are the northermost regional variants of the Nubian Group, which of course include also cultures from the south, such as the Abkan, the Neolithic of the Kadruka, and the Middle and Terminal A-Group. It is interesting to note that the aforementioned cultures are dated to two different millenia( V and IV millenium BC).Following this, and because of the strong regional variations brought to light, the necessity to change the term A-Group is here suggested again, as it already was years ago( Gatto and Tireterra 1996). In fact we are dealing with different units of the same culture group(as described by Clarke 1968), which most certainly was present in the Kerma region, as the affinities with the later Pre-Kerma Culture seem to confirm(Honneer 2004)." The Early A-Group of Upper Lower Nubia, Upper Egypt and the Surrounding Dearts by Maria Gatto, 2006 by Maria Gatto{Archaeology of Early Northeast Africa Studies in African Archaeology 9, Poznan Archaelogical Museum}pg. 232
"Any Egyptian evidence in Nubia was seen as an import or as cultural influence, while any Nubian evidence in Upper Egypt was viewed as the sporadic presence of foreign people within Egyptian territory. In the last few years, new research on the subject,particularly from a Nubian point of view, shows that interaction between the two cultures was more complex than previously thought,affecting the time, space and nature of the interaction(Gatto and Tiraterra 1996; Gatto 2000,2003a,2003b). The Aswan area was probably never a real borderline, at least not until the New Kingdom....The data recently collected and a new interpretation of the available information are beginning to bring to life a stable and long-term interaction between between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia that has to be seen in a very different perspective. The two regions, and so their cultural entities, are not in antithesis to one another, but in the predynastic period are the expressions of the same cultural tradition, with strong regional variations,particularly in the last part of the 4th millenium BC. Some of them are clearly connected with the major cultural and political changes of Egypt." At the Origin of the Egyptian: Reconsidering the Relationship between Egypt and Nubia in the Pre- and ProtoPredynastic Period by Maria Gatto{Origin of the State Conference, Toulouse, France, Sept 5-8,2005}
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Onwo (
talk •
contribs)
00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
One thing I'm sure of is that the user
Wdford is almost clueless on this subject or has intentionally chosen to be clueless! Mainstream view these days is that Early Dynastic population of upper Egypt were closely related to Saharan Africans. It takes just a few minutes of searching in online academic databases to realize that.
P.s. by this "subject" in the above paragraph I'm referring to Mario Gatto's works. It was just terribly misinterpreted by Wdford. (Just making sure my statement isn't ambiguous, and will not be abused) EyeTruth ( talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I see. If you knew her other works, then you would quickly see where she was going with this particular paper. So yeah, you misinterpreted her in your analysis, and her final conclusion isn't ambiguous in light of her other papers. But I now understand why you interpreted the way you did. BTW, she does a much better job to establish the connection in her other papers. Well, a whole bunch now believe upper Egyptians were closely related to the Nubians; especially in papers from within the last 15 years. Some others still believe they aren't. EyeTruth ( talk) 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I've come across 2 of her papers that make conclusions relevant to the one made in Egypt in its African Context. I was able to recall and find one of them: Egypt and Nubia in the 5th–4th millennia BCE. IIRC, in this one she says Middle Egypt down to Nubia shared a nearly identical culture in 5th millennium BCE (Naqada I) and distinctions began to appear by Naqada III. Once I find the other one, I will notify you if you are still interested (I haven't given Egyptology much attention in well over a year now. It's kind of difficult to recollect exactly where I read what). EyeTruth ( talk) 10:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Ancient Egyptians were black (like Ethiopians), in fact there referred to southern Africa as there ancestral homeland, until the Asian invasions (Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Turk/Mongol, Europ.), its proven genetically.
2. Once upon a time, African tribes were as wide spread as to the Caucasus, Crete (Minoic civl.), Persia, Spain etc.. But these African people living in the Near East, admixtured over time with primitive people coming from northerly regions. This is why Near Eastern people today share some African genes. e.g. some Arabs got curly hair, while Turks have straight.
3. A recent study indicates, that the genes who cause white/pale skin color of people today, are not older than 6000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.2.151 ( talk) 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Would the editor who made this suggestion please bother to justify the suggestion on the talk page? Wdford ( talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
can someone add this http://ascendingpassage.com/Abu-Simbel-Rameses-smite-Cherubini.jpg
it's from http://ascendingpassage.com/Artist-techniques-tomb-of-Seti-I.htm and it's clearly showing races with different features other than Egyptians being smitten by Ramses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.250.44 ( talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Our policy has been to try and contain all the anger and madness on a single page to avoid collateral damage to more developed articles. The rationale was, one crappy article is better than several.
Now there is no doubt that this is a "real" topic in the sense that it exists outside of Wikipedia. It is, of course, a topic of rather hardcore ideological racism within the "Afrocentrism" movement. If it is to be merged, it should certainly not be into the Population history of Egypt article, which is not about Afrocentrist ideology but about actual population history. At best the article could be split, put the ideological bits into Afrocentrism and whatever can be salvaged as free from ideological agendas into the population history article.
But I would really recommend keeping this page around as a topic in its own right, and clearly mark it as a sub-topic of Afrocentrism from the very beginning. -- dab (𒁳) 14:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Merge- seriously. This article is full of Afrocentric non-sense. Throw away the UFO theories, focus on actual science. Population history is a good destination for the good bits of info here, but everything else should be thrown away. Diop and others have really poisoned the well here. Cheers,
Λuα (
Operibus anteire)
21:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
An examination and analysis of the DNA of the remains of the ancient people would seem to be a simple and straightforward solution.
Dentine in the teeth of individuals is usually well preserved and has led to DNA analysis of Neanderthal individuals, for instance.
Such samples as would be taken would result in minimal disturbance of the deceased person's body. Fletcherbrian ( talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As has just been pointed out to me, this isn't a forum. Later I hope to search for links to this idea and so perhaps resolve the dispute to some degree. Fletcherbrian ( talk) 21:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Why was this added twice? Particularly since we have a citation needed tag for "Recent studies suggest that the modern population is genetically consistent with an ancient Egyptian population indigenous to northeast Africa." Not that I disagree with the statement, but if we need a citation then we shouldn't be adding unsourced claims once, let alone twice. Dougweller ( talk) 09:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I see a sentence about afro-centrist arguments for her blackness was removed - but why isn't the Newsweek cover story for September 23, 1991,"Afrocentrism: Was Cleopatra Black?" mentioned in the article? Dougweller ( talk) 09:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It still hasn't been added. The bias on most racial wiki articles always throws me off from reading about race subjects on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:105:B00B:6808:1991:18E6:ABAD:9887 ( talk) 23:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The bit in the lead starting "Since the second half of the twentieth century" is repeated almost immediately in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 19:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think if you look at the recent history, you'll see what I was talking about. Either (a) we have the page solely referencing alleged "American" definitions or (b) an off-topic tangent comparing different definitions of blackness around the world. The first situation is bad for so many reasons: firstly it is somewhat culturally imperialistic and chauvinistic as it uses only as reference "American" cultural values (by which we mean only the United States) for Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia for the whole world. Secondly, it is a huge simplification of the concept of "blackness" in "America", which means very different things depending on the context; different speakers have many different perceptions of what it means too. And lastly, considering that the source for this "American" notion is not even "American" itself nor a work on that concept itself, its legitimacy could be called into question. The second scenario, meanwhile leads to a huge coatrack section on an already oversized article. It's better just to leave it out. -- Yalens ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
These studies clearly have their place, but not in this particular article, which is about the history of the controversy. Dougweller ( talk) 22:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Because much of the debate was done before genetic studies were available; leaving them out would give a seriously misleading impression of the current state of the discussion, basically ending it in the mid-1950s. These new genetic studies shed much light to the reliability and motivations of earlier arguments. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate on inclusion of the references from DNA tribes. What is the justification that only peer-reviewed scientific information is permitted? This is regarding the below (not the references from Zawi Hawass but the additional DNA tribes reference for Amarna. I would like a conversation before sourced and referenced material below is reverted again:
"Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages: In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III (who historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages) and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, and as a result clustered most closely with Africans from the African Great Lakes (335.1), Southern Africa (266.0) and Tropical West Africa (241.7) and not Europeans (1.4), Middle Easterners (14.3) or peoples from the Horn of Africa (114.0). [1] [2]
Earlier studies from January 2012 of the Amarna mummies had reached similar conclusions with the average affiliations of the mummies found to be Southern African (326.94), Great Lakes African (323.76) and Tropical West African (83.74) and not Middle Eastern (6.92), European (5.21) or with peoples from the Horn of Africa (14.79). [3] As no other studies of other Ancient Egyptian mummies are available, the questions as to the genetic affiliations of other pharaohs and figures (such as Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt from 51 B.C. following the Greek Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 300 B.C.) is yet undetermined. " Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 21:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, due to that earlier discussion I replaced the Amarna lineages reference with the peer-reviewed study it was based on: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393. There should be no further problems now. Regards, 22:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed it. What are your speaking of? Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
These are the two peer-reviewed studies in question; there should be no further problems: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393
Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012
Yes, I have also started a discussion on the Wikipedia noticeboard regarding the use of supporting sources for this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (→DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies). Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 11:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you been able to look at the Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (→DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies). I have started a discussion there just recently, with some explanation of what the sources are doing. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand. What DNA Tribes did was run the data available in the peer-reviewed studies to determine the racial affiliations. Is that what you have an issue with, their running the data in the peer-reviewed studies? I think that is exactly what is going to be discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: the reliability of the conclusions of the source. Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to convey? If so, many apologies. Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I responded to your point in the argument on the noticeboard- perhaps we should migrate the discussion there so there is not a lot of repeating of arguments (I am new to this so let me know if I am misunderstanding the role of the noticeboard). Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
DNA Tribes has been used as a source in the following diverse Wikipedia articles:
Maghrebis Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas Tunisia Asian people Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the only peer-reviewed, non-commercial genetic study on the ancient Egyptians was announced this past April in Nature magazine. The mummy in question belonged to the mtDNA/maternal Haplogroup I2: "The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals may belong to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia. They also retrieved genetic material from the pathogens that cause malaria and toxoplasmosis, and from a range of plants that includes fir and pine — both thought to be components of embalming resins — as well as castor, linseed, olive, almond and lotus." Soupforone ( talk) 12:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That is great-maybe you can summarize that and add the results of that study as regards to the other pharaohs? It is good to have some mtDNA evidence and of other lineages (as Rameses III is assumed to have usurped the throne the Rameses III and Amarna studies may not be indicative of earlier lineages as the article points out):
Are you also aware of these two other peer-reviewed genetic studies (one from 2010 and one from 2012) that are referenced in the article? http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393
Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012
Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay I just saw that the study you reference is "The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad." so that would be great in the section regarding Cleopatra VII and the genetic affiliations of later pharaohs, including after the conquest of Egypt after 300 BC--- very great find, thank you! Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any sources pointing to such an uncertainty? I don't believe I've seen any to that effect. Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay that is a great source. Why don't we include that in the article as a disclaimer for the results? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion (perhaps it is just my experience with things!) all these additional sources seem like great finds that can enrich the discussion on the article-they do not seem like reasons to remove the present information in the article but to add to it, as disclaimers (in the case of the Nature uncertainty article) or additional information (like the article about the mtDNA) that enriches our understanding of the Ancient DNA affiliations of Egyptians. This is great! It adds to the readers' understanding. I don't think these articles are reasons to remove any other information but to add to it. This gives the reader a full and meaty picture of the current controversy and discussion which was what was completely missing before I made my original edits---in fact I am shocked to see so many new studies coming out of the woodwork that were completely absent yesterday! So this is my view on the purpose of Wikipedia but let me know if I am misconstruing things. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting link, thanks. There still seems to be some uncertainty about the results, then. Am I missing something, or did none of the peer-reviewed links mention anything about population affinities? Is this only the DNA-Tribes company? If so, how accurate is its conclusion? It doesn't really seem consistent with the Nature findings above; but then again, that's apparently from a different time period. Soupforone ( talk) 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Rameses III study determined genetic affinities with Sub-Saharan African populations due to E1b1a identified (Table 1), the Amarna study found the same (Figures 1 and 6). That is the crux of the discussion on the Noticeboard: DNA Tribes is simply running the data present in the peer-reviewed articles. This makes it easier for people not well-versed in science who may not be able to look at Figure 1 in the Amarna study for instance and immediately understand what the microsatellite markers represent for example. So the question is to whether that is good for a source. I honestly feel we are talking in circles but in any case. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait a second--what exactly are the arguments against DNA Tribes? According to WP:BIASED even if there may be a financial bias (I think that had been the earlier argument about DNA Tribes) that is fine as long as there is a disclaimer. Or am I missing something? I posted this question on the Noticeboard but noticed here that no one has actually articulated a reason not to include the DNA Tribes articles in the first place. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is helpful to understand. I guess I am better understanding WP:Consensus now! There are some great responses coming out of the Notice Board so at least other eyes are looking at this. I am happy at least that the peer-reviewed studies are finally being referenced at all in the articles and the validity of DNA Tribes is getting a closer look by many eyes considering the importance of this issue in general. Many thanks for a respectful and constructive discussion. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 14:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
What is controversial about including the following on the nearly identical DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis and Ancient Egyptian race controversy articles. The proliferation of articles was created specifically to try the patience and time of editors unable to conduct four separate talk page conversations on the same issue. I have already engaged in multiple talk page discussions on this issue on the separate talk pages and thought consensus had been reached at least on one of the articles with the same exact editors involved in the talk page discussions on the other pages. I have submitted a DRN on including the below on all four pages as the issues and editors involved are the same: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Population history of Egypt
Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] E1b1a. [10] [11]
Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#DNA_history_of_Egypt
(cur | prev) 14:05, 7 January 2014 Andajara120000 (talk | contribs) . . (103,021 bytes) (+4,818) . . (→DNA history of Egypt: new section) (undo) link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=589602459&oldid=589591477
(cur | prev) 15:06, 7 January 2014 Dougweller (talk | contribs) . . (82,725 bytes) (+1,018) . . (→POV synthesis on genetics being added to several articles: use the conclusiong, which is about a possible murder, but cherry-picking genetic data is inappropriate) (undo | thank) link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=589609315&oldid=589606565
But in any case, yes this closed that case due to the ArbComm but your NORN is ongoing and I highly welcome outside editor voices there. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard Another editor has kindly offered a link to the full Ramesses study for those who can only see the abstract: http://www.academia.edu/2308336/Revisiting_the_harem_conspiracy_and_death_of_Ramesses_III_anthropological_forensic_radiological_and_genetic_study Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Haplogroup E1b1a, which is common in modern Sub-Saharan African (Black People) populations.[6][7] However many experts in the DNA field dispute these conclusions, and claim instead that DNA sequencing from ancient material is unreliable and prone to contamination.[8] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.77.28.136 (
talk)
23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The article contains at least two variations of:
"Since the second half of the 20th century, anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology"
"Since the second half of the 20th century, scholars have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology"
These claims are unfortunate and I strongly encourage that they be removed:
o The first claim may or may not be correct, but borders on being irrelevant through being made about anthropologists---not biologists. In as far as the layman might fail to see the significance of this, it is also a misleading claim. Meanwhile, the second claims gives the impression that this would be the almost certain view of scientists in general, which is patently false and highly misleading. I note in particular that biologists often have radically different views from social scientists. (Not limited to this issue.)
o The claims are both strictly speaking irrelevant to the article. The only plausible reason for their inclusion (that occurs to me on short notice) is the wish to "enlighten" readers about the irrelevance of race. Apart from the irrelevance being extremely disputable or outright wrong (in the context of biology, as opposed to e.g. the context of human rights), this is definitely not the place to preach it. Generally speaking, it must never be the job of an encyclopedia to "teach values".
o The claims are vague and given without suffient context for a proper interpretation.
o The implied statement about race vs. human biology is at best misleading, at worst disastrously wrong (depending in part on the third item and as implied in the second item). Notably, there are many very well established differences between various races that move beyond mere optics. Their relevance to e.g. society (!) may be disputed, but not their relevance to biology. (This is not the place to discuss such differences in detail. However, consider e.g. that caucasians and african-americans benefit differenctly from different medications or that some african groups have a physiology that on average allows them to build a larger muscle mass easier than most europeans. I note that related questions like how "race" should be defined, whether human races are races in the sense applied to non-human animals, what groups are sufficiently homogenous to be considered a single race, etc., are perfectly legitimate; however, they do not in anyway mitigate the problems with the cited statements.)
Due to semi-protection, I have not edited the page myself. 80.226.24.15 ( talk) 22:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I dont get why this is even a controversy? Who gives a damn if they were Negroid or Caucasoid. I bet the only reason people flipped out about it is because nobody wants to associate blacks with advanced civilizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.85.67 ( talk) 04:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been a bit of bloating here over the last few months. I would like to undertake a bit of a clean-up. Two issues in particular:
The sections for the Caucasian theory, the Hamitic theory and the Eurafrid brown theory, are all actually just shades of the same theory. I would like to merge these three sections into one, and clean up the duplication. Are there any objections?
Secondly, the section for Black Hypothesis has again become too long, bearing in mind that this hypothesis has its own Main Article already. I would like to trim this down to more of a summary, and leave the reader to pursue the detail at the Main Article. Are there any objections?
Wdford ( talk) 12:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
We should also rework the history section, which as it stands currently looks rather card-stacked to give the impression that the main/only reason people thought Egyptians were anything other than "black" was because they were racist. -- Yalens ( talk) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Does this new section really belong here, or should it be at Population history of Egypt? Bearing in mind the fraught history of DNA issues in this article, let's try to be clear and consistent please? Wdford ( talk) 07:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The DNA studies section of the Population history page may perhaps be a better place for this material, as it already appears to include such genetic information on the ancient population. According to the researchers, the DNA samples were from eight Egyptian mummies. They were radiocarbon dated to a time period between the Third Intermediate and Graeco-Roman periods (806 BC–124 AD). If you click on the haplogroup page link above, it indicates that although this lineage likely originated in West Asia, it has its highest frequencies today within Africa, among other Afro-Asiatic speakers. So the lineage is probably not associated with Persians; it may instead be an indication of an older migration episode. In any event, here is the full study. Soupforone ( talk) 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
A "new" editor called Jmeyertesting has been re-adding material but also deleting stuff in a way that suggests the editor is far from new. Frankly, I do agree that unless sources link DNA to the 'race' of Egyptians, we should not be having any content about haplogroups associated with some point of origin out of Egypt, whether it be Central Africa, Asia, Norway or Mars. An individual ancestral lineage of a person tells us next to nothing about the "race of Ancient Egyptians", or even about the race of the individual Egyptian. Surely this material should only included when it has been discussed in sources in relation to the question of race. Otherwise we will get into a haplogroup war comparable to the image war, in which one person's Asian-looking DNA will be set against another person's African-looking DNA. Paul B ( talk) 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dougweller's latest edit to remove the "heavily contested" language from the black hypothesis section, as that language applies to all of the theories. We should say it in all of them or none for balance. Rod ( talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
re this edit: "Though controversy over race has persisted there has been undeniable evidence that Egyptians were Black and latter on received other influences through invasions and colonization." cited to "Bruce R. Dain: A Hideous Monster Of The Mind: American race theory in the early republic, 2009. Oxford University Press. p. 59". No such statement occurs on that page, though there is a discussion of Blumenbach's views, which summarise Blumenbach's view that 1/3 of ancient Egyptians were "negro". The author of the book neither endorses nor dismisses this assertion. Paul B ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The section is meant for peer-reviewed studies of actual Ancient Egyptian individuals. Soupforone ( talk) 23:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps of relevance here are notarized contracts from the ancient Pathyrite/El-Gebelein nome in Upper Egypt. They provide some written physical descriptions of the male and female contractors [7]. Soupforone ( talk) 23:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This section was deleted without any explanation. I see that the editor made entries on this page - see above - about things belonging here or not, but these do not explain the removal of this section. Care to explain? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no race controversy at all, a fringe minority of Afrocentrists does not constitute a serious academic opposing view.
-- 184.144.109.135 ( talk) 02:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This entire article is well balanced (perhaps too balanced – see above) and so I am confused by the side-by-side use of the descriptives “Caucasoid” and “Black” in the third sentence: “These were typically identified in terms of a distinction between the Caucasoid and Black racial categories.”
Forensic and physical anthropologists generally divide the human species into 3 (or 5) major categories: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid (sometimes plus Capoid and Australoid [Carleton S. Coon, Origin of Races, Random House, 1962, ISBN 9780394301426] who changes “Negroid” to “Congoid”). These three words are formed by employing the Greek suffix “-oid” (resembling) plus, in two cases, the use of geographic nouns (Caucasus and Mongolia), and in the third case the Spanish word for a color (“negro”, black) for the root. Coon adds consistency to terminology by his consonant use of geographic nouns (Caucasus, Mongolia, Congo, the South African Cape, and Australia) for the roots of his words.
The definition of “Negroid” is commonly understood to mean someone of sub-Saharan heritage and is synonomous in modern racial parlance with “black,” but this sentence uses, for one racial group, the forensic classification, and for the other, the name of a color. This is inconsistent: either the sentence should use two forensic classifications (“…Caucasoid and Negroid…” [or “Congoid”]), or it should use two colors (“…White and Black…”). “White” is just as messy a choice for skin color as is “Black.” For both of these “types” there are exhibited a variety of skin tones, hair textures, and morphological features, while neither approaches true white or true black, making the use of either as racial descriptives, outside of informal conversation, wholly inappropriate.
Some discussions in other fora on the net have suggested that the use of the word “Negroid” is prejudicial, and so it may be (which may inform the original writer’s choice of the word “Black” in the sentence in question); I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but granting that it may be, then for linguistic consistency’s sake the sentence should be altered to read as I have changed it. LB2Accra ( talk) 08:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)LB2Accra 24 Oct 2014
This isn't mention to be centric in any form and not I am African-American. Anyways, does the Bible mention anything about "Black People"? The only groups mentioned are the Hamites (North Africans and people from the Horn of Africa), Semites (People from the Arabian Peninsula), and the Japhetites (Europeans). I have heared some claim that the Hamites are the "Black People" but that doesn't make any sense since Berbers, modern Egyptian, and the people of the horn of Africa aren't "Blacks". If this were true woundt that make the ancient "blacks"? Even then none of the Hamites go further south then the Horn of Africa. The Bible divides them up as Phut(Berbers), Canaan, Cush (The Horn of Africa), Mizraim (Egyptains). The Bible also doesn't mention Asians. I just need help to make sense of this article and would greatly be thankful for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.244.33 ( talk) 05:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Twice I have had had changes reverted by some folks who don't like the fact that there is a lot of documentation and scholarly work showing that Petrie was often motivated by Eugenics in his work on Ancient Egypt and the Near east. There are quite a few sources for this information. Not to mention that the Dynastic Race theory itself is widely available on line along with his other writings which clearly reflect a racist point of view. Now I am not one to reject constructive criticism, but when good faith edits are reverted 'just because' somebody doesn't like it or doesn't care about the facts, I have to object. So I am creating this section to discuss the problem. The subject of the article is the controversy and obviously the Dynastic Race Theory was added as it falls under the subject of race science and the opinions of various scholars on the issue. However, to omit and downplay the fact that European scholarship at the time was blatantly racist and full of overt white supremacist dogma is simply historical revisionism. If folks can't handle the facts of history then they shouldn't be editing pages about history. There is more than enough from Petries own writings to support this view and the passage I added included his own words on the matter. So suffice to say this isn't an issue of facts, as opposed to some folks clinging vainly to the lie that European scholars are somehow without bias, contradicting the history and predominance of racist theories across most forms of scholarship in this period. This view is POV and nonhistorical. Case in point, I will use Petrie's own words to illustrate:
Yet if the view becomes really grasped, that the source of every civilization has lain in race mixture, it may be that eugenics will, in some future civilization, carefully segregate fine races, and prohibit continual mixture, until they have a distinct type, which whill start a new civilization when transplanted The future progress of man may depend as much on isolation to establish a type, as on fusion of types when established.
From: The Revolutions Of Civilizations, W M Flinders Petrie, Harper, London, url= https://archive.org/details/revolutionsofciv00petruoft, page 131
This goes along with the fundamental theory of the Dynastic Race which attributes to superior outside 'caucasian' people who dominated the rest of the mixed race stock of Egypt.
It seems then that, as far as data so widely separated in time and place can be compared, there was a mixed race in North Africa and Egypt in the early prehistoric age; and that this, fused together, has persisted in Algeria with some slight improvement in general size, and especially the width of the skull from increase of brain. To get behind this mixed race is quite beyond our present data. That there was somewhat of the old paleolithic Bushman stock is very probable; and that there may have been another low type such as the Socratic Sinai Bedawy seems likely from its position. (...) To settle how far either of these results may be representative is impossible until some other large series of prehistoric skulls may be obtained in different parts of the country. So far, it might well be that the Naqada type had been mixed with a more European type at Abydos, and also lower down in the Nile valley and along the African coast.
From: Migrations, W M Flinders Petrie, Huxley Lecture for 1906, Journal of the Anthropological institute, url= https://archive.org/details/migrations00petruoft, pages 9-10.
I am open to any discussion or opinions on the issue as to why this is not relevant to the discussion, but if you cannot show me any serious reason why it isn't fundamental to this discussion, I will post my changes again and add additional citations and references as necessary to reinforce the point that this is mainstream scholarship not simply my personal opinion.
Big-dynamo (
talk)
20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
These are hardly new insights, but there are two core problems I have observed in this debate:
![]() | This
edit request to
Ancient Egyptian race controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The part
| Anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology
the reference
| It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking
1) They say "WE BELIEVE". Belief is not a valid reference. 2) How are modern biological studies relevant to the historic races classification. I would advice to remove that statement that looks placed there for political reasons. It leads to believe that this page is infected by wikipedia activists plague, and so inertly biased, anti-scientific.
95.249.59.117 ( talk) 15:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug. This article may be about the controversy. But if you were to google "what is the race of the ancient Egyptians?" Or "were the ancient Egyptians black?" This is the first page that pops up. So. It is about their race. Sorry but it is not about the controversy itself. That is just stupid and twisting the obvious. Allanana79 ( talk) 18:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the second half of the 20th century, many anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology
There something is weaselly and underhand about this, and it undermines the credibility of the article - this is presented as an authoritative statement, but unjustifiably because anthropologists cannot speak with authority on the 'study of human biology'. I'm a great believer in asking anthropologists about questions of anthropology, and biologists about questions of biology - the situation can be easily remedied by referring also to the opinion of biologists on this matter, or by removing altogether any suggestion that this is a question of human biology.
-- Oxford Menace ( talk) 21:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
J1812, you seem to think this article is about the race of Ancient Egyptians. It isn't, although sometimes it veers into it when it shouldn't. It is meant to be about the history of the controversy, describing the controversy itself. We have a separate article about the Ancient Egyptian population Dougweller ( talk) 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I was also annoyed by this statement. My objections include that it is of low or no relevance to the article (it seems more like an attempt to introduce a politically correct agenda), that anthropologists are not necessarily well-equiped to judge the issue, that the medical sciences disagree when it comes to e.g. incidence and treatment of heart disease, that geneticist disagree e.g. in that there are genetic markers that strongly correlate with race and that these are highly useful when investigating human migration, evolution, and similar phenomena, and that the concept of race is most definitely present in the mind of the general public and of interest to many of its members (and most definitely pertinent to the understanding of the controversy and its history), whether races are of biological interest or not. In addition, while the usefulness of the race concept and the exact definition of race can validly be disputed, there are strong forces that try to enforce an ideologically driven and highly questionable perception of truth (wiz. that there are no races, that races are exclusively a "social construct", or similar) regardless of scientific backing. Wikipedia should take great care not to give such non-scientific and non-encyclopedic voices undue space. I strongly suggest that the sentence be removed, seeing the lack of relevance alone as being a sufficient reason to strike it. 80.226.24.12 ( talk) 10:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to point out that people that study medicine do scientifically identify race. After all, people of different races have different risks. For example, sickle cell is overwhelming found as a risk among black people but not white people. Because of this kind of real life need for racial categories medical science can't abandon the concept of race, instead it looks at race as being something that is based on genetic similarity. So no, just because physical anthropologists don't believe in race doesn't mean there isn't a debate here.
The paragraph which states that the ancient Egyptian facial characteritics remain a debate, followed by an obscure source of the claim should be deleted. It's like saying the race of Native Americans or ancient Chinese remains a topic of debate. It's already know the Egypt is a north African middle eastern Mediterranean country, not a sub Saharan one. Secondly, the badarian culture being related to Nubians is missing a sentince that came after it in previous version of this page but was deleted, that said The badarian immigrated to Nubia as well. This page is one of the most racist pages in Wikipedia and shouldn't even exist. It full of misinformation and tricking information, which has no relation to the topic such as Champollion comment that Egyptians are portrayed the same as Nubians which we know by now is never the case -- 24.52.201.176 ( talk) 12:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Haplogroup R1b is not entirely uncommon in the Nile Valley, as it is found at moderate frequencies among the Siwa Berbers. However, whether the pharaoh Tutankhamun actually carried the clade is uncertain since the haplotype markers weren't released [11]. Soupforone ( talk) 05:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I think a tipping point has been successfully reached. This article is supposed to be a summary of the history of the controversy, not a place to rehash the detailed POV of Diop. However the Black Hypothesis section quickly grew into a Diop-rehash. To accommodate the notability of this debunked theory, we created the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, so that all the detail could be wallowed in over there at length without distracting this article. That worked well for a few days, but then Diop's supporters duplicated all that detail back into this section as well, which is now well and truly WP:UNDUE. The answer here is to reduce the entire Herodotus block of text down to two sentences, and to keep the detail at the main Black Egyptian Hypothesis article. Ditto the Qustul detail - it is notable and belongs at the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, but should be mentioned here in summary rather than duplicated in detail. However for this to work the editors with the Diop-focus need to respect the policies, to put the detail in the appropriate article only, and to stop the duplication. Wdford ( talk) 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
References
Egypt pg 15
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).^^^ An example of a Eurocentric editor who cannot accept what contemporary mainstream scholarship has concluded on the matter. Gatto's study is dealing with ARCHAEOLOGY, which is ONE major piece of the puzzle that is needed to indicate the bio-cultural origins of the ancient Egyptians/Nile Valley. This was NOT a piece on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and the source is NOT cited in this main article to indicate race. This study concludes what has been consistently indicated by contemporary research for the past three decades but never bolded stated.
None the less you points are focusing on semantics and are irrelevant to article as the study is only cited to indicate what is it was FOCUSED ON which is the archaeological evidence in 4th paragraph of the modern scholarship section. I however will really like to debate you on your fallacious interpretations on her piece over on the HISTORUM forums [1]. If you PLEASE create a thread presenting this argument over there I will enter it. Asante90 ( talk) 19:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. My main interest here is on the pre'history'/predynastic of Ancient Egypt. I must say that the interpretations of @Wdford on the Gatto 2011 study are incorrect, but understandable seeing that he may not really be abreast of the topic itself and so wouldn't really know what Gatto meant by her statements nor the context she was basing her arguments on. So I will make it as simple as possible:
The Earliest Ancient Egyptian cultures particularly in the Valley (Upper and Middle Egypt- Tasian, Badarian and Early Naqada) were essentially the NORTHERMOST, YOUNGER variants of SAME CULTURE GROUP that extended all the way from regions of the 6th Cataract deep in the Sudan to Middle Egypt an most of the adjourning desert east an west of the valley. This culture group (possibly made of diverse peoples) had its origins clearly south of Egypt and came into Egypt as a fully-fetched culture during the 5th-4th Millennium BC mostly from a desiccating Eastern Saharan entering the Egyptian Nile that was at that time mostly sparsely populated. These groups are what archaeologists now call Tasians, Badarians and (Early) Naqadians. When I say they were all essentially of same Culture group, I mean they were so similar in almost every cultural trait (same settlement pattern, subsistence pattern, pottery, material cultural artifacts, burial traditions etc). This cultural Group have been called various names by various scholars ('Nubian' Group, Saharo-Nilotic Group, Pastoral Tradition of the Nile, Middle Nile Neolithic etc); they were as I said MOSTLY a DIVERSE group of TROPICAL Africans indigenous to Northeastern/Nilotic/Saharn Africa (probably mainly speaking Afrasan and Nilosaharan Languages). THIS IS THE MAINSTREAM VIEW, and the evidences an sources (I can provide tens of them if asked) is OVERWHELMING on this narrative. Let me just however give 2 other sources from Gatto to provide some context to her above study:
"The relationship between the Early A-Group,the Final Neolithic of the Western Desert, and the Badarian already came to light in the recent past(Gatto 2002). All of them are the northermost regional variants of the Nubian Group, which of course include also cultures from the south, such as the Abkan, the Neolithic of the Kadruka, and the Middle and Terminal A-Group. It is interesting to note that the aforementioned cultures are dated to two different millenia( V and IV millenium BC).Following this, and because of the strong regional variations brought to light, the necessity to change the term A-Group is here suggested again, as it already was years ago( Gatto and Tireterra 1996). In fact we are dealing with different units of the same culture group(as described by Clarke 1968), which most certainly was present in the Kerma region, as the affinities with the later Pre-Kerma Culture seem to confirm(Honneer 2004)." The Early A-Group of Upper Lower Nubia, Upper Egypt and the Surrounding Dearts by Maria Gatto, 2006 by Maria Gatto{Archaeology of Early Northeast Africa Studies in African Archaeology 9, Poznan Archaelogical Museum}pg. 232
"Any Egyptian evidence in Nubia was seen as an import or as cultural influence, while any Nubian evidence in Upper Egypt was viewed as the sporadic presence of foreign people within Egyptian territory. In the last few years, new research on the subject,particularly from a Nubian point of view, shows that interaction between the two cultures was more complex than previously thought,affecting the time, space and nature of the interaction(Gatto and Tiraterra 1996; Gatto 2000,2003a,2003b). The Aswan area was probably never a real borderline, at least not until the New Kingdom....The data recently collected and a new interpretation of the available information are beginning to bring to life a stable and long-term interaction between between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia that has to be seen in a very different perspective. The two regions, and so their cultural entities, are not in antithesis to one another, but in the predynastic period are the expressions of the same cultural tradition, with strong regional variations,particularly in the last part of the 4th millenium BC. Some of them are clearly connected with the major cultural and political changes of Egypt." At the Origin of the Egyptian: Reconsidering the Relationship between Egypt and Nubia in the Pre- and ProtoPredynastic Period by Maria Gatto{Origin of the State Conference, Toulouse, France, Sept 5-8,2005}
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Onwo (
talk •
contribs)
00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
One thing I'm sure of is that the user
Wdford is almost clueless on this subject or has intentionally chosen to be clueless! Mainstream view these days is that Early Dynastic population of upper Egypt were closely related to Saharan Africans. It takes just a few minutes of searching in online academic databases to realize that.
P.s. by this "subject" in the above paragraph I'm referring to Mario Gatto's works. It was just terribly misinterpreted by Wdford. (Just making sure my statement isn't ambiguous, and will not be abused) EyeTruth ( talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I see. If you knew her other works, then you would quickly see where she was going with this particular paper. So yeah, you misinterpreted her in your analysis, and her final conclusion isn't ambiguous in light of her other papers. But I now understand why you interpreted the way you did. BTW, she does a much better job to establish the connection in her other papers. Well, a whole bunch now believe upper Egyptians were closely related to the Nubians; especially in papers from within the last 15 years. Some others still believe they aren't. EyeTruth ( talk) 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I've come across 2 of her papers that make conclusions relevant to the one made in Egypt in its African Context. I was able to recall and find one of them: Egypt and Nubia in the 5th–4th millennia BCE. IIRC, in this one she says Middle Egypt down to Nubia shared a nearly identical culture in 5th millennium BCE (Naqada I) and distinctions began to appear by Naqada III. Once I find the other one, I will notify you if you are still interested (I haven't given Egyptology much attention in well over a year now. It's kind of difficult to recollect exactly where I read what). EyeTruth ( talk) 10:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Ancient Egyptians were black (like Ethiopians), in fact there referred to southern Africa as there ancestral homeland, until the Asian invasions (Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Turk/Mongol, Europ.), its proven genetically.
2. Once upon a time, African tribes were as wide spread as to the Caucasus, Crete (Minoic civl.), Persia, Spain etc.. But these African people living in the Near East, admixtured over time with primitive people coming from northerly regions. This is why Near Eastern people today share some African genes. e.g. some Arabs got curly hair, while Turks have straight.
3. A recent study indicates, that the genes who cause white/pale skin color of people today, are not older than 6000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.2.151 ( talk) 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Would the editor who made this suggestion please bother to justify the suggestion on the talk page? Wdford ( talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
can someone add this http://ascendingpassage.com/Abu-Simbel-Rameses-smite-Cherubini.jpg
it's from http://ascendingpassage.com/Artist-techniques-tomb-of-Seti-I.htm and it's clearly showing races with different features other than Egyptians being smitten by Ramses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.250.44 ( talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Our policy has been to try and contain all the anger and madness on a single page to avoid collateral damage to more developed articles. The rationale was, one crappy article is better than several.
Now there is no doubt that this is a "real" topic in the sense that it exists outside of Wikipedia. It is, of course, a topic of rather hardcore ideological racism within the "Afrocentrism" movement. If it is to be merged, it should certainly not be into the Population history of Egypt article, which is not about Afrocentrist ideology but about actual population history. At best the article could be split, put the ideological bits into Afrocentrism and whatever can be salvaged as free from ideological agendas into the population history article.
But I would really recommend keeping this page around as a topic in its own right, and clearly mark it as a sub-topic of Afrocentrism from the very beginning. -- dab (𒁳) 14:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Merge- seriously. This article is full of Afrocentric non-sense. Throw away the UFO theories, focus on actual science. Population history is a good destination for the good bits of info here, but everything else should be thrown away. Diop and others have really poisoned the well here. Cheers,
Λuα (
Operibus anteire)
21:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
An examination and analysis of the DNA of the remains of the ancient people would seem to be a simple and straightforward solution.
Dentine in the teeth of individuals is usually well preserved and has led to DNA analysis of Neanderthal individuals, for instance.
Such samples as would be taken would result in minimal disturbance of the deceased person's body. Fletcherbrian ( talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As has just been pointed out to me, this isn't a forum. Later I hope to search for links to this idea and so perhaps resolve the dispute to some degree. Fletcherbrian ( talk) 21:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Why was this added twice? Particularly since we have a citation needed tag for "Recent studies suggest that the modern population is genetically consistent with an ancient Egyptian population indigenous to northeast Africa." Not that I disagree with the statement, but if we need a citation then we shouldn't be adding unsourced claims once, let alone twice. Dougweller ( talk) 09:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I see a sentence about afro-centrist arguments for her blackness was removed - but why isn't the Newsweek cover story for September 23, 1991,"Afrocentrism: Was Cleopatra Black?" mentioned in the article? Dougweller ( talk) 09:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It still hasn't been added. The bias on most racial wiki articles always throws me off from reading about race subjects on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:105:B00B:6808:1991:18E6:ABAD:9887 ( talk) 23:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The bit in the lead starting "Since the second half of the twentieth century" is repeated almost immediately in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 19:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think if you look at the recent history, you'll see what I was talking about. Either (a) we have the page solely referencing alleged "American" definitions or (b) an off-topic tangent comparing different definitions of blackness around the world. The first situation is bad for so many reasons: firstly it is somewhat culturally imperialistic and chauvinistic as it uses only as reference "American" cultural values (by which we mean only the United States) for Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia for the whole world. Secondly, it is a huge simplification of the concept of "blackness" in "America", which means very different things depending on the context; different speakers have many different perceptions of what it means too. And lastly, considering that the source for this "American" notion is not even "American" itself nor a work on that concept itself, its legitimacy could be called into question. The second scenario, meanwhile leads to a huge coatrack section on an already oversized article. It's better just to leave it out. -- Yalens ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
These studies clearly have their place, but not in this particular article, which is about the history of the controversy. Dougweller ( talk) 22:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Because much of the debate was done before genetic studies were available; leaving them out would give a seriously misleading impression of the current state of the discussion, basically ending it in the mid-1950s. These new genetic studies shed much light to the reliability and motivations of earlier arguments. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate on inclusion of the references from DNA tribes. What is the justification that only peer-reviewed scientific information is permitted? This is regarding the below (not the references from Zawi Hawass but the additional DNA tribes reference for Amarna. I would like a conversation before sourced and referenced material below is reverted again:
"Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages: In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III (who historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages) and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, and as a result clustered most closely with Africans from the African Great Lakes (335.1), Southern Africa (266.0) and Tropical West Africa (241.7) and not Europeans (1.4), Middle Easterners (14.3) or peoples from the Horn of Africa (114.0). [1] [2]
Earlier studies from January 2012 of the Amarna mummies had reached similar conclusions with the average affiliations of the mummies found to be Southern African (326.94), Great Lakes African (323.76) and Tropical West African (83.74) and not Middle Eastern (6.92), European (5.21) or with peoples from the Horn of Africa (14.79). [3] As no other studies of other Ancient Egyptian mummies are available, the questions as to the genetic affiliations of other pharaohs and figures (such as Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt from 51 B.C. following the Greek Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 300 B.C.) is yet undetermined. " Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 21:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, due to that earlier discussion I replaced the Amarna lineages reference with the peer-reviewed study it was based on: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393. There should be no further problems now. Regards, 22:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed it. What are your speaking of? Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
These are the two peer-reviewed studies in question; there should be no further problems: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393
Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012
Yes, I have also started a discussion on the Wikipedia noticeboard regarding the use of supporting sources for this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (→DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies). Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 11:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you been able to look at the Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (→DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies). I have started a discussion there just recently, with some explanation of what the sources are doing. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand. What DNA Tribes did was run the data available in the peer-reviewed studies to determine the racial affiliations. Is that what you have an issue with, their running the data in the peer-reviewed studies? I think that is exactly what is going to be discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: the reliability of the conclusions of the source. Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to convey? If so, many apologies. Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I responded to your point in the argument on the noticeboard- perhaps we should migrate the discussion there so there is not a lot of repeating of arguments (I am new to this so let me know if I am misunderstanding the role of the noticeboard). Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
DNA Tribes has been used as a source in the following diverse Wikipedia articles:
Maghrebis Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas Tunisia Asian people Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the only peer-reviewed, non-commercial genetic study on the ancient Egyptians was announced this past April in Nature magazine. The mummy in question belonged to the mtDNA/maternal Haplogroup I2: "The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals may belong to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia. They also retrieved genetic material from the pathogens that cause malaria and toxoplasmosis, and from a range of plants that includes fir and pine — both thought to be components of embalming resins — as well as castor, linseed, olive, almond and lotus." Soupforone ( talk) 12:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That is great-maybe you can summarize that and add the results of that study as regards to the other pharaohs? It is good to have some mtDNA evidence and of other lineages (as Rameses III is assumed to have usurped the throne the Rameses III and Amarna studies may not be indicative of earlier lineages as the article points out):
Are you also aware of these two other peer-reviewed genetic studies (one from 2010 and one from 2012) that are referenced in the article? http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393
Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012
Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay I just saw that the study you reference is "The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad." so that would be great in the section regarding Cleopatra VII and the genetic affiliations of later pharaohs, including after the conquest of Egypt after 300 BC--- very great find, thank you! Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any sources pointing to such an uncertainty? I don't believe I've seen any to that effect. Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay that is a great source. Why don't we include that in the article as a disclaimer for the results? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion (perhaps it is just my experience with things!) all these additional sources seem like great finds that can enrich the discussion on the article-they do not seem like reasons to remove the present information in the article but to add to it, as disclaimers (in the case of the Nature uncertainty article) or additional information (like the article about the mtDNA) that enriches our understanding of the Ancient DNA affiliations of Egyptians. This is great! It adds to the readers' understanding. I don't think these articles are reasons to remove any other information but to add to it. This gives the reader a full and meaty picture of the current controversy and discussion which was what was completely missing before I made my original edits---in fact I am shocked to see so many new studies coming out of the woodwork that were completely absent yesterday! So this is my view on the purpose of Wikipedia but let me know if I am misconstruing things. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting link, thanks. There still seems to be some uncertainty about the results, then. Am I missing something, or did none of the peer-reviewed links mention anything about population affinities? Is this only the DNA-Tribes company? If so, how accurate is its conclusion? It doesn't really seem consistent with the Nature findings above; but then again, that's apparently from a different time period. Soupforone ( talk) 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Rameses III study determined genetic affinities with Sub-Saharan African populations due to E1b1a identified (Table 1), the Amarna study found the same (Figures 1 and 6). That is the crux of the discussion on the Noticeboard: DNA Tribes is simply running the data present in the peer-reviewed articles. This makes it easier for people not well-versed in science who may not be able to look at Figure 1 in the Amarna study for instance and immediately understand what the microsatellite markers represent for example. So the question is to whether that is good for a source. I honestly feel we are talking in circles but in any case. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait a second--what exactly are the arguments against DNA Tribes? According to WP:BIASED even if there may be a financial bias (I think that had been the earlier argument about DNA Tribes) that is fine as long as there is a disclaimer. Or am I missing something? I posted this question on the Noticeboard but noticed here that no one has actually articulated a reason not to include the DNA Tribes articles in the first place. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is helpful to understand. I guess I am better understanding WP:Consensus now! There are some great responses coming out of the Notice Board so at least other eyes are looking at this. I am happy at least that the peer-reviewed studies are finally being referenced at all in the articles and the validity of DNA Tribes is getting a closer look by many eyes considering the importance of this issue in general. Many thanks for a respectful and constructive discussion. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 14:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
What is controversial about including the following on the nearly identical DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis and Ancient Egyptian race controversy articles. The proliferation of articles was created specifically to try the patience and time of editors unable to conduct four separate talk page conversations on the same issue. I have already engaged in multiple talk page discussions on this issue on the separate talk pages and thought consensus had been reached at least on one of the articles with the same exact editors involved in the talk page discussions on the other pages. I have submitted a DRN on including the below on all four pages as the issues and editors involved are the same: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Population history of Egypt
Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] E1b1a. [10] [11]
Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#DNA_history_of_Egypt
(cur | prev) 14:05, 7 January 2014 Andajara120000 (talk | contribs) . . (103,021 bytes) (+4,818) . . (→DNA history of Egypt: new section) (undo) link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=589602459&oldid=589591477
(cur | prev) 15:06, 7 January 2014 Dougweller (talk | contribs) . . (82,725 bytes) (+1,018) . . (→POV synthesis on genetics being added to several articles: use the conclusiong, which is about a possible murder, but cherry-picking genetic data is inappropriate) (undo | thank) link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=589609315&oldid=589606565
But in any case, yes this closed that case due to the ArbComm but your NORN is ongoing and I highly welcome outside editor voices there. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard Another editor has kindly offered a link to the full Ramesses study for those who can only see the abstract: http://www.academia.edu/2308336/Revisiting_the_harem_conspiracy_and_death_of_Ramesses_III_anthropological_forensic_radiological_and_genetic_study Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Haplogroup E1b1a, which is common in modern Sub-Saharan African (Black People) populations.[6][7] However many experts in the DNA field dispute these conclusions, and claim instead that DNA sequencing from ancient material is unreliable and prone to contamination.[8] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.77.28.136 (
talk)
23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The article contains at least two variations of:
"Since the second half of the 20th century, anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology"
"Since the second half of the 20th century, scholars have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology"
These claims are unfortunate and I strongly encourage that they be removed:
o The first claim may or may not be correct, but borders on being irrelevant through being made about anthropologists---not biologists. In as far as the layman might fail to see the significance of this, it is also a misleading claim. Meanwhile, the second claims gives the impression that this would be the almost certain view of scientists in general, which is patently false and highly misleading. I note in particular that biologists often have radically different views from social scientists. (Not limited to this issue.)
o The claims are both strictly speaking irrelevant to the article. The only plausible reason for their inclusion (that occurs to me on short notice) is the wish to "enlighten" readers about the irrelevance of race. Apart from the irrelevance being extremely disputable or outright wrong (in the context of biology, as opposed to e.g. the context of human rights), this is definitely not the place to preach it. Generally speaking, it must never be the job of an encyclopedia to "teach values".
o The claims are vague and given without suffient context for a proper interpretation.
o The implied statement about race vs. human biology is at best misleading, at worst disastrously wrong (depending in part on the third item and as implied in the second item). Notably, there are many very well established differences between various races that move beyond mere optics. Their relevance to e.g. society (!) may be disputed, but not their relevance to biology. (This is not the place to discuss such differences in detail. However, consider e.g. that caucasians and african-americans benefit differenctly from different medications or that some african groups have a physiology that on average allows them to build a larger muscle mass easier than most europeans. I note that related questions like how "race" should be defined, whether human races are races in the sense applied to non-human animals, what groups are sufficiently homogenous to be considered a single race, etc., are perfectly legitimate; however, they do not in anyway mitigate the problems with the cited statements.)
Due to semi-protection, I have not edited the page myself. 80.226.24.15 ( talk) 22:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I dont get why this is even a controversy? Who gives a damn if they were Negroid or Caucasoid. I bet the only reason people flipped out about it is because nobody wants to associate blacks with advanced civilizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.85.67 ( talk) 04:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been a bit of bloating here over the last few months. I would like to undertake a bit of a clean-up. Two issues in particular:
The sections for the Caucasian theory, the Hamitic theory and the Eurafrid brown theory, are all actually just shades of the same theory. I would like to merge these three sections into one, and clean up the duplication. Are there any objections?
Secondly, the section for Black Hypothesis has again become too long, bearing in mind that this hypothesis has its own Main Article already. I would like to trim this down to more of a summary, and leave the reader to pursue the detail at the Main Article. Are there any objections?
Wdford ( talk) 12:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
We should also rework the history section, which as it stands currently looks rather card-stacked to give the impression that the main/only reason people thought Egyptians were anything other than "black" was because they were racist. -- Yalens ( talk) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Does this new section really belong here, or should it be at Population history of Egypt? Bearing in mind the fraught history of DNA issues in this article, let's try to be clear and consistent please? Wdford ( talk) 07:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The DNA studies section of the Population history page may perhaps be a better place for this material, as it already appears to include such genetic information on the ancient population. According to the researchers, the DNA samples were from eight Egyptian mummies. They were radiocarbon dated to a time period between the Third Intermediate and Graeco-Roman periods (806 BC–124 AD). If you click on the haplogroup page link above, it indicates that although this lineage likely originated in West Asia, it has its highest frequencies today within Africa, among other Afro-Asiatic speakers. So the lineage is probably not associated with Persians; it may instead be an indication of an older migration episode. In any event, here is the full study. Soupforone ( talk) 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
A "new" editor called Jmeyertesting has been re-adding material but also deleting stuff in a way that suggests the editor is far from new. Frankly, I do agree that unless sources link DNA to the 'race' of Egyptians, we should not be having any content about haplogroups associated with some point of origin out of Egypt, whether it be Central Africa, Asia, Norway or Mars. An individual ancestral lineage of a person tells us next to nothing about the "race of Ancient Egyptians", or even about the race of the individual Egyptian. Surely this material should only included when it has been discussed in sources in relation to the question of race. Otherwise we will get into a haplogroup war comparable to the image war, in which one person's Asian-looking DNA will be set against another person's African-looking DNA. Paul B ( talk) 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dougweller's latest edit to remove the "heavily contested" language from the black hypothesis section, as that language applies to all of the theories. We should say it in all of them or none for balance. Rod ( talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
re this edit: "Though controversy over race has persisted there has been undeniable evidence that Egyptians were Black and latter on received other influences through invasions and colonization." cited to "Bruce R. Dain: A Hideous Monster Of The Mind: American race theory in the early republic, 2009. Oxford University Press. p. 59". No such statement occurs on that page, though there is a discussion of Blumenbach's views, which summarise Blumenbach's view that 1/3 of ancient Egyptians were "negro". The author of the book neither endorses nor dismisses this assertion. Paul B ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The section is meant for peer-reviewed studies of actual Ancient Egyptian individuals. Soupforone ( talk) 23:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps of relevance here are notarized contracts from the ancient Pathyrite/El-Gebelein nome in Upper Egypt. They provide some written physical descriptions of the male and female contractors [7]. Soupforone ( talk) 23:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This section was deleted without any explanation. I see that the editor made entries on this page - see above - about things belonging here or not, but these do not explain the removal of this section. Care to explain? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no race controversy at all, a fringe minority of Afrocentrists does not constitute a serious academic opposing view.
-- 184.144.109.135 ( talk) 02:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This entire article is well balanced (perhaps too balanced – see above) and so I am confused by the side-by-side use of the descriptives “Caucasoid” and “Black” in the third sentence: “These were typically identified in terms of a distinction between the Caucasoid and Black racial categories.”
Forensic and physical anthropologists generally divide the human species into 3 (or 5) major categories: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid (sometimes plus Capoid and Australoid [Carleton S. Coon, Origin of Races, Random House, 1962, ISBN 9780394301426] who changes “Negroid” to “Congoid”). These three words are formed by employing the Greek suffix “-oid” (resembling) plus, in two cases, the use of geographic nouns (Caucasus and Mongolia), and in the third case the Spanish word for a color (“negro”, black) for the root. Coon adds consistency to terminology by his consonant use of geographic nouns (Caucasus, Mongolia, Congo, the South African Cape, and Australia) for the roots of his words.
The definition of “Negroid” is commonly understood to mean someone of sub-Saharan heritage and is synonomous in modern racial parlance with “black,” but this sentence uses, for one racial group, the forensic classification, and for the other, the name of a color. This is inconsistent: either the sentence should use two forensic classifications (“…Caucasoid and Negroid…” [or “Congoid”]), or it should use two colors (“…White and Black…”). “White” is just as messy a choice for skin color as is “Black.” For both of these “types” there are exhibited a variety of skin tones, hair textures, and morphological features, while neither approaches true white or true black, making the use of either as racial descriptives, outside of informal conversation, wholly inappropriate.
Some discussions in other fora on the net have suggested that the use of the word “Negroid” is prejudicial, and so it may be (which may inform the original writer’s choice of the word “Black” in the sentence in question); I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but granting that it may be, then for linguistic consistency’s sake the sentence should be altered to read as I have changed it. LB2Accra ( talk) 08:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)LB2Accra 24 Oct 2014
This isn't mention to be centric in any form and not I am African-American. Anyways, does the Bible mention anything about "Black People"? The only groups mentioned are the Hamites (North Africans and people from the Horn of Africa), Semites (People from the Arabian Peninsula), and the Japhetites (Europeans). I have heared some claim that the Hamites are the "Black People" but that doesn't make any sense since Berbers, modern Egyptian, and the people of the horn of Africa aren't "Blacks". If this were true woundt that make the ancient "blacks"? Even then none of the Hamites go further south then the Horn of Africa. The Bible divides them up as Phut(Berbers), Canaan, Cush (The Horn of Africa), Mizraim (Egyptains). The Bible also doesn't mention Asians. I just need help to make sense of this article and would greatly be thankful for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.244.33 ( talk) 05:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Twice I have had had changes reverted by some folks who don't like the fact that there is a lot of documentation and scholarly work showing that Petrie was often motivated by Eugenics in his work on Ancient Egypt and the Near east. There are quite a few sources for this information. Not to mention that the Dynastic Race theory itself is widely available on line along with his other writings which clearly reflect a racist point of view. Now I am not one to reject constructive criticism, but when good faith edits are reverted 'just because' somebody doesn't like it or doesn't care about the facts, I have to object. So I am creating this section to discuss the problem. The subject of the article is the controversy and obviously the Dynastic Race Theory was added as it falls under the subject of race science and the opinions of various scholars on the issue. However, to omit and downplay the fact that European scholarship at the time was blatantly racist and full of overt white supremacist dogma is simply historical revisionism. If folks can't handle the facts of history then they shouldn't be editing pages about history. There is more than enough from Petries own writings to support this view and the passage I added included his own words on the matter. So suffice to say this isn't an issue of facts, as opposed to some folks clinging vainly to the lie that European scholars are somehow without bias, contradicting the history and predominance of racist theories across most forms of scholarship in this period. This view is POV and nonhistorical. Case in point, I will use Petrie's own words to illustrate:
Yet if the view becomes really grasped, that the source of every civilization has lain in race mixture, it may be that eugenics will, in some future civilization, carefully segregate fine races, and prohibit continual mixture, until they have a distinct type, which whill start a new civilization when transplanted The future progress of man may depend as much on isolation to establish a type, as on fusion of types when established.
From: The Revolutions Of Civilizations, W M Flinders Petrie, Harper, London, url= https://archive.org/details/revolutionsofciv00petruoft, page 131
This goes along with the fundamental theory of the Dynastic Race which attributes to superior outside 'caucasian' people who dominated the rest of the mixed race stock of Egypt.
It seems then that, as far as data so widely separated in time and place can be compared, there was a mixed race in North Africa and Egypt in the early prehistoric age; and that this, fused together, has persisted in Algeria with some slight improvement in general size, and especially the width of the skull from increase of brain. To get behind this mixed race is quite beyond our present data. That there was somewhat of the old paleolithic Bushman stock is very probable; and that there may have been another low type such as the Socratic Sinai Bedawy seems likely from its position. (...) To settle how far either of these results may be representative is impossible until some other large series of prehistoric skulls may be obtained in different parts of the country. So far, it might well be that the Naqada type had been mixed with a more European type at Abydos, and also lower down in the Nile valley and along the African coast.
From: Migrations, W M Flinders Petrie, Huxley Lecture for 1906, Journal of the Anthropological institute, url= https://archive.org/details/migrations00petruoft, pages 9-10.
I am open to any discussion or opinions on the issue as to why this is not relevant to the discussion, but if you cannot show me any serious reason why it isn't fundamental to this discussion, I will post my changes again and add additional citations and references as necessary to reinforce the point that this is mainstream scholarship not simply my personal opinion.
Big-dynamo (
talk)
20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
These are hardly new insights, but there are two core problems I have observed in this debate:
![]() | This
edit request to
Ancient Egyptian race controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The part
| Anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology
the reference
| It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking
1) They say "WE BELIEVE". Belief is not a valid reference. 2) How are modern biological studies relevant to the historic races classification. I would advice to remove that statement that looks placed there for political reasons. It leads to believe that this page is infected by wikipedia activists plague, and so inertly biased, anti-scientific.
95.249.59.117 ( talk) 15:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug. This article may be about the controversy. But if you were to google "what is the race of the ancient Egyptians?" Or "were the ancient Egyptians black?" This is the first page that pops up. So. It is about their race. Sorry but it is not about the controversy itself. That is just stupid and twisting the obvious. Allanana79 ( talk) 18:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the second half of the 20th century, many anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology
There something is weaselly and underhand about this, and it undermines the credibility of the article - this is presented as an authoritative statement, but unjustifiably because anthropologists cannot speak with authority on the 'study of human biology'. I'm a great believer in asking anthropologists about questions of anthropology, and biologists about questions of biology - the situation can be easily remedied by referring also to the opinion of biologists on this matter, or by removing altogether any suggestion that this is a question of human biology.
-- Oxford Menace ( talk) 21:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
J1812, you seem to think this article is about the race of Ancient Egyptians. It isn't, although sometimes it veers into it when it shouldn't. It is meant to be about the history of the controversy, describing the controversy itself. We have a separate article about the Ancient Egyptian population Dougweller ( talk) 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I was also annoyed by this statement. My objections include that it is of low or no relevance to the article (it seems more like an attempt to introduce a politically correct agenda), that anthropologists are not necessarily well-equiped to judge the issue, that the medical sciences disagree when it comes to e.g. incidence and treatment of heart disease, that geneticist disagree e.g. in that there are genetic markers that strongly correlate with race and that these are highly useful when investigating human migration, evolution, and similar phenomena, and that the concept of race is most definitely present in the mind of the general public and of interest to many of its members (and most definitely pertinent to the understanding of the controversy and its history), whether races are of biological interest or not. In addition, while the usefulness of the race concept and the exact definition of race can validly be disputed, there are strong forces that try to enforce an ideologically driven and highly questionable perception of truth (wiz. that there are no races, that races are exclusively a "social construct", or similar) regardless of scientific backing. Wikipedia should take great care not to give such non-scientific and non-encyclopedic voices undue space. I strongly suggest that the sentence be removed, seeing the lack of relevance alone as being a sufficient reason to strike it. 80.226.24.12 ( talk) 10:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to point out that people that study medicine do scientifically identify race. After all, people of different races have different risks. For example, sickle cell is overwhelming found as a risk among black people but not white people. Because of this kind of real life need for racial categories medical science can't abandon the concept of race, instead it looks at race as being something that is based on genetic similarity. So no, just because physical anthropologists don't believe in race doesn't mean there isn't a debate here.
The paragraph which states that the ancient Egyptian facial characteritics remain a debate, followed by an obscure source of the claim should be deleted. It's like saying the race of Native Americans or ancient Chinese remains a topic of debate. It's already know the Egypt is a north African middle eastern Mediterranean country, not a sub Saharan one. Secondly, the badarian culture being related to Nubians is missing a sentince that came after it in previous version of this page but was deleted, that said The badarian immigrated to Nubia as well. This page is one of the most racist pages in Wikipedia and shouldn't even exist. It full of misinformation and tricking information, which has no relation to the topic such as Champollion comment that Egyptians are portrayed the same as Nubians which we know by now is never the case -- 24.52.201.176 ( talk) 12:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Haplogroup R1b is not entirely uncommon in the Nile Valley, as it is found at moderate frequencies among the Siwa Berbers. However, whether the pharaoh Tutankhamun actually carried the clade is uncertain since the haplotype markers weren't released [11]. Soupforone ( talk) 05:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)