Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 11

message: I could have sworn I was in something academic regarding Egypt, yet these guys are noted raving afrocentrists that are the laughing stock of the athropology and egyptology mainstream. Perhaps someone confused this wiki for afrocentrism?[[User:KillerPlasmodium
|KillerPlasmodium]] 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keita and Diop, am I in the wrong wiki? 

message: The reason why I say introducing the language phylum of the ancient egyptians by stating, "The Ancient Egyptian language is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew, is redundant is because Afro-Asiatic includes many more languages than that, and it doesn't destroy the context at all to not include them and just provide the link, it's just a bad starter.. I see it more appropriate to simply state the obvious, that it's part of the Afro-asiatic family, then get into details about why semitic may or may not originate in Africa. It makes it seem as if semitic is the only language group closely associated with Ancient Egyptian, which isn't true anyways, even tho proto-semitic probably did emerge in Africa..Taharqa 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afro-Asiatic 

message: Geographic East Africans themselves are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
^^^It has been brought to my attention that the editor who goes by the name of Evil Greek has contributed the particular entry above into the intro. The problem with this is that studies cited in this article have not compared ancient Egyptian crania and skeletal remains to "East Africa" as some type of single, biological unit. The main African sources of comparison were Nubians and Somalis.. To support this assertion, the user cited this study here, from the European Journal of Human Genetics.. However, the study in question undermines this claim as is noted in the abstract its self:
The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population – closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya – with predominant E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000–5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa. 
^So obviously these East Africans are not anywhere near "more related to Eurasians than to other Africans", it specifically states that they are most closely related to Omoros in Ethiopia and populations in Northern Kenya. 
However, the paper did make a broad generalization, claiming that East Africans as a whole were more closely related to Eurasians then to other Africans. Yet, the data its self doesn't seem to reflect such a position.
I will cite a collaborative 2004 study on Ethiopian MtDNA performed by several scientists to examine the validity of the claim in question... 
Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations. - Source
^The study its self indicates that Ethiopians sampled, share 52.2% maternal lineages in common with "Sub-Saharan" Africa, with Yemenis sharing 45% of the same lineages.. In other words, "half and half", as they've obviously exchanged gene flow over the past few millennia.. To suggest that half and half = "closer to Eurasian populations" is an obvious exaggeration.. 
^But besides the point, this study is on Ethiopians and Ethiopians were not cited anywhere on this page if I recall, so it isn't notable since Somalis were specified as the  "East Africans" of interest.Taharqa 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  most importantly the study just focusses on y-chromosomal or mtDNA lineages. These do not correspond with autosomal admixture. The study says 77% of somalis in the sample were of e3b1, but this is an east-African haplogroup. So the assertion that somalis are more closely related to eurasians than to other Africans is not supported by the data in the rest of the study.Muntuwandi 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Evil greek has not attempted to discuss his findings. I believe it is unfair to edit war without defending ones edits on the discussion page.Muntuwandi 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalis and East Africa 

message: ^Can an admin please remove that "stray from the topic" tag at the top f the page? It shouldn't be there and I only added it because the previous version had unverified claims and Original research, that are no longer present or notable. The tag basically is there for no reason at all and you can see in the history that I'm the one who put it there in the first place. I may not be around, so if this request is handled, please disable template (users: whenever you see it), and that goes out to whoever (admin, user, etc)..
We will also continue to discuss how we can later improve the article and prevent future disputes..Taharqa 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tag 

message: I am placing this on the Wider Attention list to solicit more community input. Here are my impressions of this and the "appearance" articles:
There are very clear violations of WP:NPOV (especially, WP:UNDUE), WP:V and WP:NOR in the two articles that deal with this topic. In particular, they give too much undue weight to Afrocentric theories and fringe ideas, particularly those *unanimously* rejected by scholars and scientists in the field. For example, the "kemet means black people" business is presented casually as a claim that enjoys as much scholarly consensus as the fact that it means Black Land. To do that without violating UNDUE, a reference such as a peer-reviewed journal or another mainstream academic source should be cited. None of the references in the article satisfy these criteria with regard to this particular point, they are rather in a league of their own (i.e. Diop et al.) 
According to the policy: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the article was recently split and their titles no longer make any reference or allusion to the actual "racial" debate. "Population of ancient Egypt" is stated very matter-of-factly, and if this is the case then it must give more weight to the majority view, which corresponds to present-day Egyptological/scientific consensus (that Egyptians are Egyptians, not black or white; that Kemet means Black Land not the anachronistic "Black People", etc.) and include those views which diverge from the consensus in their own section (or article). See Great Pyramid of Giza for an example of this. 
Scholars should ideally meet the criteria set in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Claims given majority weight should not solely be based on fringe researchers whose work no one in the mainstream academic community takes seriously, are never published or cited (except to rebut) in respected academic sources or invited to speak at regular conferences to present their research findings to their peers. This paper is an example of an academic response  to a popular Afrocentric idea propagated by Diop about the supposed relationship of the Egyptian language to some West African languages like Wolof. 
Finally, I'm a little appalled by the unhinged display of ownership by some of the regular editors of this article, saying in effect that anything which questions the "Africanity" (read: Afrocentric) POV will not be included in the article. Wikipedia is not Afrocentrepedia. It is not a venue to promote a certain POV to the exclusion of all others, nor to give it undue weight in contradiction to the overwhelming consensus on the topic. Wikipedia is not a quote farm either. Quote farms lack substance and are a poor substitute for actual articles. It's OK to have quotes when there is otherwise substantial and substantive content. I was also a bit surprised to recognize my own writing in an article to which I have not contributed. This is of course completely fine by me (it's wiki) but not when it is being misrepresented to give in effect the opposite conclusion of the cited study. This, among many other things, needs to be amended. — Zerida 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent edits 

message: Firstly, in reference to Km.t, your original research claims aren't notable, and both points of view were offered. Just because one makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it will be burried under the ground and Diop wasn't even cited for that.. Calling anything "afrocentric" with out a source is POV driven and has been discussed here already and we came to a consensus that name-calling, and blanket terms like "Eurocentric and "Afrcentric" has no basis here and stems from those who seem to disagree with whatever for whatever reason but have no means of refutation. All of that as far as the sources are concerned, has been discussed and consensus has been reached.
See here
^None of the sources are "afrocentric" and Diop is notable and was also subjected to criticism, that got the last word. You haven't made note of anything whatsoever that doesn't meet wiki quality standards and have double talked for three paragraphs. Check the ref list, scholars such as Irish, Brace, Keita, Zark, Yurco, Leftkowitz, the Britannica, etc, etc. etc. are all noted!! All mainstream and top notch authorities of the field whom everyone depends on for this type of stuff. We've referenced Underhill, Redford, Shaw, Ehret, and you have done nothing but try to undermine it all by screaming "afrocentrism".. This will not be tolerated and I suggest you go back and see the consensus on it and third, fourth, and fifth opinions.Taharqa 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Km.t 

message: I see some real nonsensical baggage being brought to this article and a lot of generalizing with out anything to back up charges. It is sickening how easily one can merely make a claim with out defending it and demand change with out being specific. With out citing mainstream references and so on. It seems like a polarization issue to me, that people accustomed to the polar opposite of Eurocentrism aren't accustomed to neutrality and empirical research so anything that deviates from that initial paradigm is deemed "Afrocentric instead of Euro. My suggestion is that if we're to open some type of dialogue that at least out of courtesy, one should be able to point out examples and bring fourth sources that exemplifies the point. In this case I see such claims again, as borderline conspiracy theory based on absolutely nothing but a few disagreeable editors who didn't even have the etiquette to respond directly and in the appropriate thread, but took the liberty to make another simply to rant on about some imaginary conspiracy that they can't even defend or elaborate on. I suggest again that you go here and see how such notions were brutally rejected in the past. 
I'll also make the same challenge and assuming that the challenge isn't taken and passed, then this is yet another display of polarizing issues by way of red herring arguments from a Eurocentric standpoint, as mainstream academia is the basis for this page and these comments in essence are absolutely baseless, which as of now, isn't supported by the undressed statements made above..
Here is the ref list from which every single relevant entry is cited. Go through the list, associate which reference applies to which statement/s, then explain how they disagree with "mainstream view" and are not mainstream themselves, in addition to telling us what qualifies them as afrocentric?
Diop aside, his criticism was noted and being such a front runner in the movement and such a controversial Egyptologist, he is notable even if it is just to note his research and criticism. I don't want anyone using him as a red herring and trying to focus on him as if it applies to the entire article though, which undermines everything else. No one is here to debate over him, even though frankly in my opinion, besides the cultural unity theory and the strictly racially-based approach (which was prevalent from the 50's to the 70s with classifications like "negroid and caucasoid" and wasn't unique to him in any way), not much of his work has been discredited, but again, he is not the issue and emphasis on him is a red herring and will not be continuously entertained..
Now elaborate on these sources and answer the challenge please............
Ref list:
   1. ^ The Civilization Of Ancient Egypt
   2. ^ [1]
   3. ^ a b Ann Roth: Building Bridges to Afrocentrism
   4. ^ Keita, op. cit.
   5. ^ Redford, Egypt, Israel, p. 17.
   6. ^ (Keita 1995)
   7. ^ [2]
   8. ^ [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199706/ai_n8769532 (Bosch et. al, 1997)
   9. ^ Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27
  10. ^ July, Robert, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, Charles Scribners and Sons, New York, p. 60-61
  11. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, macropedia, 1984 ed, "Nilotic Sudan, History Of", p. 108
  12. ^ http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html
  13. ^
  14. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf
  15. ^ Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994, The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
  16. ^ [Hammer, M. et al. 1997.]
  17. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828
  18. ^ American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [3]
  19. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/haplotypes_in_egypt.pdf
  20. ^ [http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita6.pdf
  21. ^ http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf
  22. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf
  23. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/who_were_egyptian.pdf
  24. ^ Bosch et. al, 1997
  25. ^ Newman 1995
  26. ^ Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. p. 62-100
  27. ^ [Zakrzewski, et al. 2007.]
  28. ^ [Irish, et al. 2006.]
  29. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita6.pdf
  30. ^ Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race"' (1993)
  31. ^ S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles,' The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence', American Anthropologist (1997)
  32. ^
  33. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf
  34. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf
  35. ^
  36. ^ http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm
  37. ^ http://www.webzinemaker.com/admi/m7/page.php3?num_web=27310&rubr=3&id=290477
  38. ^ The Afroasiatic Language Phylum: African in Origin, or Asian?
  39. ^ Raymond Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2002, p. 286.
  40. ^ Aboubacry Moussa Lam, De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993, p. 181.
  41. ^ Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963) The Languages of Africa. International journal of American linguistics, 29, 1, part 2
  42. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, 1984 ed, Vol 13, "Nilotic Sudan, History Of", p. 108
  43. ^ Yurco, op. cit.
  44. ^ M.Diakonoff, Journal of Semitic Studies, 43,209 (1998)
  45. ^ Redford, Donald B., Egypt, Israel, and Canaan in Ancient Times (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 13.
  46. ^ Gardiner, Alan. Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: University Press, 1961), p. 392.
  47. ^ Shaw, Ian. and Nicholson, Paul, The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1995), p. 228.
^Thank you..Taharqa 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism, red herrings, cultural bias, and double talk 

message: I think before we proceed into the discussion the two articles need to be merged. The same editors ar e discussing the same points on two different pages. I suggest we revert to Ancient Egypt and race or Ancient Egypt and race (controversies). Muntuwandi 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Racial History of Egypt - Eugen Strouhal
Taken from "Rassengeschichte der Menschheit - Afrika I: Nord- und Mittelafrika" (1975).
Just some comments out of the book made by Strouhal who claims possible relative cultural and anthropological continuity in Egypt rather than foreign immigration:
III. The Oldest Agricultural Populations
1. Neolithicum:
Findings from Badari brought 59 skulls, 83 skulls from Mostagedda und partly from Badari. The skulls are small, relatively gracile, predominantely dolichocran, medium- to high faces but relatively broadnosed. They differ from later series by having a high nasal index and in the non-metrical features (BERRY, BERRY, UCKO 1967). Its about prognathy, flat noses and other features in various individuals which could be interpreted as Negrid influences. Body height ranged from 150-180 cm, body build was gracile with weak muscles. Hair was black or dark brown, wavy or simple, but there were 12,2 percent frizzy hair (BRUNTON and CATON-THOMPSON 1928).
The Sudan was at the same time inhabited by predominantely Negrid fisher, gatherer and hunter cultures (CHAMLA 1968). 
It can be assumed that the agriculture and animal husbandry was brought by a new population from the Middle East to Egypt (HAYES 1964). 
This new growing Neolithic population mostly absorbed the small mesolithic settlers. The immigration could date from the 7. to the 6. thousand B.C., in the beginning of the wet makalic (makalisch) phase. At this time was the Sahara habitable again and Europid population movements from the North met Negrids from the South (TRIGGER 1965). It came to a Negrid infiltration of the Upper Egypt population, but its possible that the specific environmental conditions added to the morphological differentiaton of Upper- and Lower Egypt. 
2. Predynastic Time:
In conclusion we can say that the development of the Mediterranid type was related to the transition from the hunger-gatherer subsistence to agriculture and animal husbandry in Egypt.
Its possible to see a local cultural and biological continuity from the original Badari population with stronger Negrid affinities from which the Egyptians evolved away. 
The length and breadth of the skull as well as the facial breadth increased, whereas the height of the skull decreased.
The profile angle increased and the nose became longer and somewhat broader. The LBI increased and the LHI and BHI, the maxillary index, upper facial index and NI decreased.
There were brachycran (always at the border to mesocrany) skulls especially in Lower Egypt and it can be discussed whether they were rather "Alpine" or Armenoid. Ferembach claimed that Alpines came up in the Middle East out of Protomediterranean or Mediterranean types (FEREMBACH 1966). They appear there for the first time in the Neolithicum and Chalkolithicum and more numerous in the Bronze Age, whereas "Armenoids" appear first in the Chalkolithicum sporadically (SAUTER 1945). 
The hypothesis could be made that the Egyptian brachycrany developed directly at the border of the Mediterranid range of variation. 
IV. The Populations of the Historical Time Egypts
The type of the population of Lower Egypt is taller, more robust and appears therefore more virile than the shorter, more gracile and therefore more feminine appearing population of Upper Egypt. 
3. The Question of Negrid Admixture
Egypt was neither very far away from Negrid areas nor isolated. Egyptians often expanded towards the South for various reasons (business, ressources, slave trade, political expansion etc.) On the other hand attracted the rich country inhabitants of the South in the rich land of the Lower Nile. Its not surprising that even in the primitive times (Badari-Culture) Negrids appear in Egypt (STROUHAL 1971), which numbers decreased later but rose again in the time of the New Empire (JUNKER 1927) and because of the Arabian slave trade. Negrid immigration determined the anthropological history of Nubia. In Egypt itself was the proportion of Negrids much lower, in contrast to the claims of DIOP (1962, 1967) about a predominantely Negrid character of the Old Egyptian civilisation. After the anthropological record we can estimate it about 1 to 5 percent, together with a proportion of mixed individuals. 
Some comments about Nubia:
4. The Kerma-Culture:
Negroid and non-Negroid elements were that mixed that they couldnt be separated with the exception of two markedly Negro-skulls. 
5. Pan Graves:
In the 2nd intervening period appear in Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt flat, pan-alike graves with squatting positions. Its assumed that this are burials of Nubian mercenaries. They have even stronger Negroid admixture than the Group C of Lower Nubia. Their character together with the wide distribution in the South, to the 17th degree of latitude speak for a black African origin. 
EHGARTNER and JUNGWIRTH (1966) pointed to an old Protomediterranid or Eurafrican substratum. This could be rests of the mesolithic groups which are known from the environment of Wadi Halfa (STROUHAL and JUNGWIRTH 1971). 
Strouhal speaks in his overview about the "Negroidisierung" ("Negrisation") of the Nubian population with the exception of the New Empire which was a period of Europoid expansion. The differences between Lower and Upper Egyptians show the tendency to decrease, which might be primarily the result of mixture (S. 50).
MoritzB 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the structure of this article 

message: Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105
The Diversity of Indigenous Africans
Professor S. 0. Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University
The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces. However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches. Classical European writers ("eyewitnesses") are not very helpful either, since they were not working within modern science. Ancient Greeks made a distinction between Egyptians and "Ethiopians," but such a distinction does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were not Africans. Also, it is not clear whether the distinction was actually sometimes more cultural than biological. Curiously, some Greeks reported that Egypt was an Ethiopian colony.
There is a stereotyped image in the minds of many people about what a "real" African looks like, or what characteristics can be "authentically" African. This stereotype also affects scientists, as noted with candor by Professor Jean Hiernaux (1975:54).
Stereotyped concepts of African human biology seem to persist because of a failure to integrate the facts of paleontology, genetics, and ecology into an interpretive framework based on evolutionary principles. This failure has led some scholars erroneously to explain that diversity in Africa is mainly the result of "true Africans" intermarrying with invaders or colonists from Europe and Asia. Hence, the eye fold, yellow skin, and hair form of most Khoisan speakers were once explained as the result of a very ancient mixing of "Mongoloids" with "true Africans." The narrow noses and faces of many Tutsi were seen as the result of "Caucasian," and ultimately European, admixture. What is wrong with these explanations, given that "intermarriage" does take place, producing people with "variable" features? The answer is straightforward, although multifaceted. First, the explanations are mainly the result, erroneous theories that postulated that humans had evolved into distinct non-overlapping types at some point in the past. This required explaining all variation as a product of the blending of these types. This perspective largely predates modern understanding, yet it persists to some degree! Secondly, there are no adequate data supporting the massive invasions of Africa required by these explanations, especially those that imply that some groups resident in Africa are not African in origin.
The diversity of Africans, which includes ancient Egyptian; and Berber speakers, is real and largely indigenous. An evolutionary perspective helps us understand why. Modem Homo sapiens have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else, according to most scholars. This length of time means that more random genetic mutations, the ultimate source of genetic variation, have accumulated in Africa. Furthermore, Africa is climatically and ecologically diverse. This favors diversification by Darwinian selection. The continent is large, which allows great movements and fissioning of populations. This promotes random genetic variation, since small portions of larger populations rarely accurately represent the range of genetic variation in a larger group, whether it is ancestral or exists at the same time.
Molecular data suggest that the early modern human population began to divide between 150,000 to 115,000 years ago. This fissioning would have taken place in Africa. Modern human fossils dated to about 90,000 years ago are found outside Africa, but the next genetic fissioning is believed to have occurred after this, perhaps about 70,000 years ago (Bowcock et al. 1991). Modern human remains in Asia, including Australia, are dated after this period, and in Europe, to around 35,000 years ago. Why are these data important? Because they indicate that the background genetic variation of Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians originated in Africa and precedes in time the presence of modern humans in these areas. Europeans and Asian-Australians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans.
The alternative to this explanation would be that a population of genetically uniform individuals left Africa before or between 100,000 and 90,000 years ago, evolved into ancestral Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians, and then returned at some point to Africa. This would then account for certain resident Africans having genetic characteristics only found in Africa, and others being similar to non-Africans. The various kinds of data do not support this scenario. No part of Africa was initially populated from Eurasia-Australia in the time frames given, nor to any great degree in the last 15,000 years, in the sense of different populations replacing each other. This does not mean that the relatively recent historic movements of Europeans and Near Easterners did not probably have some impact on northern African gene pools. However, it may be difficult to determine which genetic variants are not indigenous to northern Africa.
It is important to note that a small amount (one to five percent) of sustained migration, generation after generation, into a population can alter its genetic character in a few thousand years, assuming that the migrants freely intermarry. This is not the same as a new population coming in and displacing, exterminating, or reproducing in greater numbers than the locals. However, both can have the same genetic results. Historical genetic analyses and hypotheses are made more difficult when newcomers may be only slightly different genetically.
"Hamitic hypothesis" is the name given to the migration theory developed by Seligman (Sanders 1969). This theory postulated that "Hamites" migrated to Africa from the Near East bringing new languages, superior genes, and culture and influencing the indigenous people. Hamites were seen as lost Europeans. Hamites allegedly peopled Northern Africa and influenced other regions. Narrow noses and faces, lighter skin, straighter hair, certain lifestyles, and political systems were attributed to Hamites, such that wherever these were found, "Hamitic blood" was alleged to be the source. This is all now known to be untrue. The so-called Hamitic languages are part of a family called Afroasiatic or Afrasian (formerly Hamito-Semitic), which originated in Africa. Only one branch, called Semitic, is spoken outside of Africa.
Admixture with non-Africans probably does not explain the bulk of the variation from Algeria to South Africa, although northern Africa was more affected in this regard. At the DNA level great African continent-wide diversity preceded the minor European and Near Eastern migrations of later Holocene times. There may have been some migration during the Neolithic Period, although Neolithic Northern African sites do not, in the main, look like the work of European or Near Eastern settler colonists. Even "new" "non-African" genes would be subject to the human and physical environment of Africa and hence would be reworked, thereby becoming a part of African biohistory, just as recent tropical African genes have been processed in Greece, Sicily and Portugal. In any case, it is important to reiterate that Africa equals diversity. Evolutionary theory predicts and extrapolations from molecular analyses and skeletal remains all indicate an early and ongoing diversity in the indigenous populations of Africa. The implication of this is that terms like "Negro," "Caucasian," "Hamite," etc., are misleading and non-scientific as applied to Africa. 
Also see: The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient EgyptiansTaharqa 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Evil GreeK 

message: Please remember that the goal here is not to push the truth but to expose the reader to all academic information out there. A quick comparison to some european history, the evidence of the Holocaust is quite overwhelming but it does not mean wikipedia should ignore the abnormalities that consist of the holocaust-deniers. Present all the information and let it speak for itself. Remember there are many controversial subjects in history, look around to see how others deal with it. My thoughts about this egyptial race revert wars and talk page debates is that they are idiotic in the purist form. If you have no intention of improving this articles the weight of your opinion drops dead right there. Do some true research and write sourced drafts about how you wish this subject should be presented. If its well researched and does not consist of cherry picking of authors who present only one "theory" then the article will contain your information. If others refuse to accept it then measures can be taken agains't them assuming your comply with all policies. Stop wasting time with this debate and try to improve this articles, if your interest does not lie in this then you should go off and visit an ancient-egyptian forum and have your debates there. 74.13.92.176 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. We present what sound sources are saying. If somebody find a sound source not mentioned here which gives another point of view, let him bring it to the article. But to reject what is already in the article because one doesn't like it is nonsense.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The great pointless talk page debate 

message: this very discussion should have been posted in the article in the form of "various opinions" section or so. --Tsboncompte 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Concur 

message: Thank you Taharqa for merging the two articles, Population history of ancient Egypt and Appearence of the ancient Egyptians. I wish that people edit this new article peacefully. This is possible only if we discuss changes in this page before making them in the main text. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done! 

message: Zerida and Egyegy. I am not against you, because I don't know you. We are editing the same article, let's do it in a constructive manner. I came back to the last version as a starting point. Before making any change, as the subject is explosive, we better discuss the matter. I noticed for example that in the section "Ancient writers", there is a tentative to explain what Herodotus meant. But this not the right place! We do report what people said about the ancient Egyptians, not what they meant. The section "Alleged Eurocentrism in Egyptology" became "Afrocentric writers". Who told you that Basil Davisdon or Maurizio Damiano-Appia are classified as Afrocentrists? Besides, I don't understand why you are refusing on-line videos as sources. This about what Diop and Davidson. I think that if we agree on some rules, we can make this article become very nice. But if we go on waring, the article will suffer and we with it. That's what you want?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Egyegy, what are your proposals for impoving the article? Let's go section by section.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lusala, first everyone really should understand that there is *no* justification of any kind for the blind deletions of my additions. It is very discourteous and yet another violation of one of our policies. My additions are sourced, clearly relevant to the topic, and balance out the article (i.e., provide another view). You said there is a tentative to explain what Herodotus meant. But this not the right place!  -- I'm afraid, Lusala, it is. This helps contextualize the information presented with insight by Classics scholars. I realize that not all of the changes I made will make everyone happy, but to simply revert all the effort I put into the article is unacceptable. Please feel free to add to the article without compromising my edits. I believe I have extended the same courtesy to you since almost all of the information that was previously included is either still intact or a little summarized. Thanks for elevating the level of discussion, by the way. — Zerida 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You are only trying to be provocative here by encouraging people to edit-war. This really needs to stop. You are trying to block out any information that might disagree with your views. Don't forget that we have rules about neutrality. I suggest you read it. Egyegy 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Egyegy. Nobody can impose his views here. Not even Taharqa. Only sources if they fit in the right place. That's why we have to discuss to clarify the ideas. We can start editing with the text as we have it now. Section after section. Please, give your objections beginning with the first one. Go on Egyegy! I invite also Muntuwandi and Louisvillian to take part to the discussion. Because they know well about this article since they have been editing it. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. We can edit a very nice and balanced article if we respect rules and each other.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Lusala, I've responded to you on my talk page again. I've also created Talk:Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)/Draft so people can actually look at the changes I made more thoroughly, as the blind reverts suggest to me they are not being carefully considered. — Zerida 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing peacefully 

message: According to you, Zerida, this section has to be broken into subsections. I am inviting the other editors to reat to Zerida's draft, for now, only about this particular section.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient writers