Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 5

message: Dear Urthogie, 
I would like first of all to come back to the issue of the picture number 3 of the article. I told you that this man is not a Nubian, but an Egyptian. You are questioning the reliability of the picture I indicated you.
*Actually the picture of the article and that what I am mentioning are from the same wall. You can notice it very easily. To be convinced, go to another site which has the reputation of not being afrocentric, but whose purpose is to distroy afrocentrism. The site is www.geocities.com/enbp/ Go to section ""Black" Africans in Egyptian Art". And once there, widen the picture "Foreign "races" from Ramesses III tomb". You will see in the middle 2 Blacks beleived to be Nubians. There are the last 2 of the series of 4. The one of the article is number 1 as I told you already. Now, look carefully to those 2 Blacks. Above them you can read the word "rmT" which means "man", "Egyptians" as indicated Faulkner, "A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian", p. 149). You can also see the determinatives between the 2 and after the 2nd. They are part of the name "rmT" written between the 4 Blacks. This picture is a great testimony of the racist mentality denouced by the egyptologist Maurizio Damiano-Appia. "Ancor più precisamente, con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", p. 8).
::Ok, I did my research and I think I can prove you wrong on this point.  Description of this picture from the Theban Mapping Project: "Book of Gates, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H) lower register, scene 30: Nubian, one of the "four races of mankind," erroneously labeled as an Egyptian.".  
::De façon exceptionnelle, dans le tombeau de Ramsès III où une vignette identifie une figure de Nubien comme égyptienne, l'image des Ret et des Nahasu est identique en tous points, y compris les vêtements. Les tenants de la thèse afrocentriste y voient une preuve que les Égyptiens étaient identiques aux autres Africains. Les autres égyptologues considèrent que les artistes ont mal étiqueté les images parce que les vignettes sont également inversées pour TMHHW (les Libyens) et AAMW (les Asiatiques/Sémites).
::English translation from Google Translate:
::In an exceptional way, in the tomb of Ramsès III where a label identifies a figure of Nubian like Egyptian woman, the image of Ret and Nahasu is identical in all points, including clothing. Holding of the thesis afrocentrist see a proof there that the Egyptians were identical to the other Africans. The other Egyptologists consider that the artists badly labelled the images because the labels are also reversed for TMHHW (Libyans) and AAMW (the Asian ones/Sémites).
::As you can see, your point is addressed in the literature, and the mainstream view is that it was mislabeled.  (Do the guys on the right look Libyan to you??)--Urthogie 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please put the quote in context.  "le bande di raccoglitori-cacciatori".  Which hunter-gatherers are we referring to here?  Please put it in the full context.  Also, remember that this is one man, and after you provide the quote we'll see what other scientists have to say... But first provide the full context of the quote.--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This passage doesn't seem to disprove the mixed-race view.  Noone disagrees that there was trade and contact ongoing.  By the way, friend, I know you are from Italy by your IP address, but you must know I am very weak in speaking Italian and French.  Translator tools on the internet only work to a certain degree.  Please translate what you can (being honest as possible, of course :)).--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an issue of a certain degree of error.  Chantre doesn't seem to be saying that all of the remains are historically unrepresentative/inaccurate, but rather that possibly some of them are.--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As much research as possible is done-- the historical record is of course limited.  But evidence from both higher and lower egypt support the mixed race hypothesis.  Here is a google search on "Lower Egypt" to show you some skin tones from the art of the region: .  Notice how they are mainly brown, but none of them blue black as we would expect.  This is what Chantre would call ";es véritables Egyptiens, Coptes et Fellahin". --Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: These are mixed societies that are mainly white Europeans.  However, Egypt was not just a mixed society.  It was a society where most individuals were of a distinct Egyptian type-- a type influenced by North African, Mediterranean, and some other Asian and European ancestries.  In The entire idea of race is not scientific-- that's why we use "racial characteristics".  As far as racial characteristics, the average egyptian was in some ways similar to his north african neighbors, and in some ways similar to his mesopotamian neighbors.--Urthogie 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the appearance in the photo their complexion is akin to many sub-saharan africans.Muntuwandi 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded the photo from before, this time with even lighting throughout, without the grayness towards the edges.  The photo is not modified to make it lighter, it is simply uniform and clean now.--Urthogie 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued discussion

message: According to the picture the scientific consesus is that the libyan was mislabeled, would people mind expanding that topic because I don't know what that is suppose to mean.  Does that mean that the Libyan is really the guy with the very black skin or is the libyan the guy from syria, or is the libyan the guy with brown skin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the Libyan was probably meant to be marked as an Asian/Middle Easterner, but the hieroglyph was off.--Urthogie 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libyan mislabelled? 

message: This sentence doesn't make sense.  The implication of this is that only caucausians/whites have hooknoses.  This contradicts everything known about biological anthropology.  We know that people with the so called hooknoses are simply people who have lived in high elevations.  For example, Persians have hooknoses, but so do Ethiopians, many south africans and sudanese people, as well as even native americans who come from the andes or other mountain ranges.  The shape of your nose is indepedent of race and totallly dependent on elevation.  Ie. people from the chinese lowlands have flatnoses but this is because they come from dry desert climates like many africans.  Of course we would never say this makes chinese black. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye... the guy who added it used geocities as his source!--Urthogie 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooknose sentence 

message: It was nice discussing this with you two.  Unfortunately it's against the rules for us not to discuss the article for such a lengthy period of time.  Anyways, best regards, --Urthogie 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our discussion was removed not because of what it said but simply because all discussion must be not for the readers but for the editors of the article.  This is the rule of Wikipedia.  Also, noone is saying that Ancient Egypt in the very beginning had semites.  I never said this, only you said this in misquoting me.  The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans.  This is my view.  Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The very first Egyptians weren't mixed with Semites (Narmer, for example).  Later ancient Egyptians who interacted with Semites were.  Make sense?--Urthogie 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no more discussion 

message: Rahotep looks like my uncle, can we add him back? :) futurebird 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess... I'm just worried that all of the pictures being art will give people the idea that Egyptians actually looked the same color as the art...  The best scientific evidence isn't from art: there's plenty of Egyptian art with green people in it.  The art indicates very much less than is commonly supposed:
"It is apparent that the ancient Egyptians did not make racial distinctions themselves, but rather ethnic distinctions based on nationality. Tomb paintings depicting captive Nubians may show them as being very dark, but this is an artistic convention stereotyping a nationality, and to conclude there were therefore no very dark Egyptians would be a non sequitur. Similarly, the skin tones in art depicting the Egyptians themselves adhere to convention rather than an absolutely accurate description of reality. Tutankhamun is variously shown as being black as in the guardian statues found in his tomb, and brown or beige as in the lotus bust."
I won't revert you though.--Urthogie 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Following Eurocentric Egyptologists, this article is trying to show that ancient Egypt was a « mixed-race  society ». To prove this theory, the article affirms that ancient Egyptians had “brown skin”. In their tentative of falsifying the black history, Eurocentric Egyptologists are multiplying errors. Actually the fact that many ancient Egyptians had brown skin is a prove that Egypt was a Black country.
*In the past, I quoted Joseph Ki-Zerbo who said “many Blacks have brown skin (bien de Noirs ont la peau brune)” (Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Histoire générale de l’Afrique Noire, d’Hier à Demain, Paris: Hatier, 1972, p. 80). Eurocentric Egyptologists are incapable in African Studies while Egypt is an African society! They even ignore Nubia or they try to ignore it. But they are wrong. 
*The brown skin colour is also quite normally found among the Nubians.  I have already referred to the image of the Nubians in the tomb of Huy published by Georges Posener, Serge Sauneron, Jean Yoyote in the Dizionario della civiltà Egizia (Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1961, p. 297). Yes, Eurocentric Egyptologists are making people laugh! When are they going to begin doing science? This is a big question! 
*Aboubacry Moussa Lam studied this question closely. He wrote: “If we get interested to individuals, we notice an interesting phenomenon: some Egyptians were called so-and-so the red and so-and-so the black. These cases are present in all the periods of the long Egyptian history. We saw, from the census we did thanks to the works of Ranke on the personal names, that the Egyptians who added the qualification “black” to their name were more numerous than those who added the qualification “red” (…). / In our investigations, we came across two brothers who bore the same name, the first rname of their great father ; one was called Hapi-the–black and the other Hapi-the-red. These two Egyptians belonged to the high nobility of the end of the Old Empire. To distinguish them, their neighbours chose a significant element: the difference of the colour of the skin. / The analysis of these facts (the use of km and of dSr for distinguishing the Egyptians) brought us to make a sensible question: is it possible to make such a distinction in a race other than the black race? Without excluding totally that possibility, let’s recognize simply that it is within the black race that we meet skins which vary from very dark to very light, giving thus real possibilities of differentiation. Within white races, it is the hair which is exploited. There also one encounters a vast range which goes from very dark to golden blond. Then, it seems that the fact of encountering Egyptians with the qualifications of km and dSr for distinguishing them , is another prove of the belonging of the Egyptian people to the black race. The skin of other races do not obey easily to such a distinction (Si nous descendons maintenant au niveau des individus, nous constatons un phénomène digne d’intérêt : certains Egyptiens se faisaient appeler Untel le rouge ou Untel le Noir. Ces cas s’étalent sur toutes les périodes de la longue histoire égyptienne. Nous avons remarqué, à la suite du recensement que nous avons opéré essentiellement à partir des travaux de Ranke sur les noms de personnes, que les Egyptiens qui avaient ajouté l’épithète « noir » à leur nom étaient plus nombreux que ceux avaient ajouté l’épithète « rouge » (…). / Dans nos investigations, nous avons eu la chance de tomber sur deux frères homonymes, qui portaient en fait le prénom de leur grand-père ; l’un s’appelant Hapi-le-noir et l’autre Hapi-le-rouge. Ces deux Egyptiens appartenaient à la haute noblesse de la fin de l’Ancien Empire. Pour les distinguer, leur entourage a tout simplement retenu un détail significatif: la différence de carnation de la peau. / L’analyse de ces faits (l’utilisation de km et de dSr pour distinguer les Egyptiens) nous a amené à nous poser une question de bon sens : peut-on utiliser ce genre de distinction dans une race autre que la race noire ? Sans exclure une telle possibilité, reconnaissons tout de même que c’est au sein de la race noire que nous trouvons des peaux qui varient du noir charbon au brun le plus clair, offrant ainsi de réelles possibilités de différentiation. Au sein des races leucodermes, c’est surtout la chevelure qui est exploitée ; là aussi on trouve une gamme assez vaste, qui va du noir de jais au blond doré. Ainsi, selon toute vraisemblance, le fait de trouver des Egyptiens avec les épithètes km et dSr pour les distinguer, est un autre indice de l’appartenance de la population égyptienne à la race noire, la peau des autres races humaines ne se prêtant que difficilement à ce type de différenciation) » (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire, Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, p. 83).
*Despite the fact that Eurocentric Egyptologists often hide the pictures of the Egyptians who are found to be very dark or call them depiction of Nubians, they forget that the presence of the brown skin in a given population is an indication of the existence of the dark skin in the same population, and vice versa. The days of the Eurocentric Egyptologists are being reckoned. This type of Egyptologists is clearly doomed to failure in face of the amount of mistakes they have been intentionally making in order to discredit the achievements of the Black race. These mistakes are bit by bit coming to light thanks to the works of honest scientists like Maurizio Damiano-Appia and Francesca L. Nera (cf. Egitto e Nubia, Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1995). 
Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: add image

message: what's the deal with the Origin of the Nilotic peoples? How accurate is that term anyway? Someone is trying to push a heavy afrocentric agenda with that fork, it's written like a high school paper. 207.195.246.86 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nilotic peoples? 

message: :Taharqa is right in his interventions. Genetics cannot really help to solve the issue of race. Within any race, genetics can bring notable differences. This is the case among the Whites like among the Blacks. Genetics is only good in the issue of origins. In this regard, even Whites are from Black African origins. Because the modern man is proved to be from Africa. Still, Whites are white even if their ancestors were black ! The section on genetics is really confusing. About the Caucasoid type. It has to be noted that it refers to Europeans who now people Europe, America, Australia and New Zealand. They have light skin and sleek hair. Encyclopaedias agree on this. If somebody has doubts I can still provide sources.  Ancient Egyptians cannot come from them because these Europeans came from Central Russia during the 2 millennium BC. Egypt was united in the 4 millennium BC! Let’s not speak about the Semites who reached Palestine and then invade Egypt also around the second millennium BC.  Mesopotamia is for no help. While Egypt was already in his dynastic period, in Mesopotamia they were not yet in the proto-dynastic period which is known to be of insufficient archaeological documentation. In the past, I provided sources to Urthogie about what I am saying now. If we turn to Africa itself, we encounter all the elements we need to justify the rise of Kmt as the first nation in human history.  There is no empty place which can call for a foreign justification. Are these Egyptians black? The melanin test done by Cheikh Anta Diop on the mummies confirms the observations of the Greeks who are actually Indo-Europeans and white, the Jews and the Arabs who are Semites and white. All of them said without exception that the ancient Egyptians are black. If the Eurocentrist scholars cannot believe these ancient sources, that is their problem. Those sources are published, and anybody can see from himself how really accurate they are, and who is wrong and why, the ancient or the modern schoolars. Besides, if somebody knows any melanin test which states that the ancient Egyptians did not have a black skin like the Blacks we know today, let him bring that documentation here for evaluation. Finally, there is no way to oppose the Nubians with the Egyptians. The very first Egyptian nome is Ta-Seti “Nubia”. Egypt begins with Lower Nubia. Quite normal, because the Egyptians are Nubians who followed the Nile while new lands were gained from the see thanks to the Nile deposits and to the down fall of the see level. The most ancient sites of Egypt are in the south. Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 23-24
Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University
What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?
These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
References Cited:
Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986
Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990
Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987
Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993
Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annah of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987
Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984
Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984
^^End of debate, any person with a half of a brain can sit here and tell that the Egyptians weren't white. The real argument is how "black" they were and if it was black enough to be considered 3/5 of a human being in 18th Century America. I think so, seeing as how it was a diverse mix of different African populations from its inception.Taharqa 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is evident from the work is that ancient peoples do not fit easily into modern "race" politics, of either a "Eurocentric" or "Afrocentric" variety. As I recall Keita et al's prior articles have tended toward emphasizing that ancient Saharan North Africa was non-homogenous in terms of physical morphologies (races), with genetic evidence supporting work as early as the 1960s highlighting both "caucosiod" and "negroid" (to use to somewhat archaic terms) as well "intermediate" skeletal types being found dating to the "wet period." The evidence suggests, it would appear, Saharan to mountainous North Africa was inhabited from an early date by quite diverse populations, some of which in modern popular perception would be 'white' "European" in appearance, some intermediate and some "black African." The argument about what 18th century Americans would percieve as to these ancient populations race is modern American race politics, not science. It should be discussed under such articles, not loaded on the backs of long dead Egyptians, whether "white" middle or otherwise. collounsbury 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

message: The Egyptians were not "mixed". They were indigenous Africans who migrated from the south and south/west from near the Sahara and the Sudan, this is the most widely accepted theory. The theory of "Mesopotamian" admixture has since been discredited by the mainstream.
Dynastic Race Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_Race_Theory
These skull measurements that people cite have since been strongly challenged, as early Egyptian crania had more similarities with other Africans be it North or East Africans than Europeans. That wouldn't even make sense (that they have European crania) unless Europeans invaded Africa, which they did not until the Greek and Roman eras. 85% of genetic variance happens with in localized populations and natural selection pressures are causes for variation. It is of my opinion that these people, prior to foreign admixture, looked no different than any other Africans. As far as recent geographical ancestry, both Berber and Egyptians have traces of more ancient (yet recent evolution wise) East African ancestry, which is expected.. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#Genotype_by_region
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828
Also, the way they depicted themselves is overrated to say the least. They drew them selves red and women yellow, what race is literally red and yellow? These were only to make a distinction of nationality. People are hypocrites, first Eurocentrics argue that the Egyptians didn't see race the same as we do, then use those pictures as an argument that Egyptians saw themselves as a different "race". This simply comes from a misunderstanding of African culture. Ethiopians draw themselves blue sometimes and other Africans black. Some west Africans draw themselves very light brownish yellow to differentiate them selves. And all in all, most red people in the world live in Africa, and are just as authentically African, or "Black" (since no one is literally Black) as any other Africans. These are some of the people modern day Egyptians can trace their mtDNA to..
http://www.joshuaproject.net/profiles/photos/p110051.jpg
^^This Eritrean woman looks red to me, and more authentically African or "Black" than 80% of African Americans.
I don't see why people choose to pick on outdated radical Afrocentrism instead of arguing the facts, that these people were native to Africa, and migrated from the south and southwest. Since terms like Negroid and Caucasoid are obsolete in Anthropology, especially concerning Africa's diversity, the only question left is were these Africans dark skinned or light skinned? Seeing as how they (Egyptians) have a recent common ancestor in East Africa, 5,000 years ago, before any significant foreign admixture, I'd be inclined to believe that they looked a lot closer to their African counterparts in East Africa and the Nile Valley. Frank Yurco, Egyptologist, Affirms that the Egyptians were closest ethnically to the Nubians out of any of the other foreigners. And if the Nubians were artistically and stereotypically portrayed as jet-black, what would that tell you about their relationship with the Egyptians? Even to take those wall pictures literally, one would have to admit that at least they thought of themselves as the second darkest race in the ancient world.Taharqa 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Facts

message: There is no way that people will ever come to common terms on this article because everybody thinks that they're right, and that they can over rule the sources with weak arguments that seem as if they were written by a child. All of my edits keep getting changed around and reworded in favor of Eurocentrism. Not to mention that people are deleting entire sections just because they have no arguments to refute them. Too many racists on the internet in general, if anyone has an opposing view to a Eurocentric one it's automatically deemed "Afrocentric" when more than likely it just reflects the truth. Radical Afrocentrism is saying that the greeks were black, the first Asians were black, blacks are Gods, etc. Now that's nonsense, but what is not nonsense is that the Egyptians were native Africans from Africa, and weren't subject to serious foreign influence for the first 1,000 years. But no one is going to post that no matter how many peer reviewed studies I post from different mainstream scientists and Egyptologists. Too much of a political agenda on here. Answers.com has this very same article and it is perfect, no bias what so ever and they come at it from all angles, including genetics. This article is pure crap and I request a deletion. Taharqa 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A RfC is probably the best option. I'm sorry you keep getting reverted - from your edits it seems as if what you're saying is all backed up with sources but since I know nothing about the topic I can't really comment. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a few because you removed massive and cited sections of the article because you disagreed with the information. If the info is supported by reliable sources and you have other information, also supported by reliable sources, then they both go into the article. This article is a POV cess pool and it will continue to be until it is deleted. The last time it went to AfD I voted to revert it to a simpler explanatory version but I've now come to realize that people will always come here to push their own ethnic bias (both Euro and Afrocentic) making this article the shit pile that it is and will always be. NeoFreak 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have reverted you once because you blanked the page (never a good move) - also I checked the Jablonski quote from the source cited and the version you kept reverting to was not correct as it gave the lead paragraph of the site and not the block quote from the authors. This certainly made me suspicious of the quality of your edits so maybe you should move a bit slower and communicate on this talk page more when there is a problem. It could just be that others on't understand the angle you are coming from - I would ask you to AGF and not asume that these reverts are racially motivated.  Sophia 08:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I suggest that we delete this article

message: Cavalli-Sforza and Diop and Jensen.  Their projects are heavily criticized by mainstream scientists.  I'm going to add more mainstream sources, as this article is getting to polarized in the Genetics section.  My opinion is that sources such as Diop  and Jensen are too fringe/radical in their Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist views to get such attention over mainstream science.  Wikipedia:NPOV backs me up on this, as this could be considered giving undue weight to the extreme positions rather than the most weight to the mainstream,m and only some mention of extreme views.  USE GOOGLE SCHOLAR!  Find more modern, more mainstream sources.  That's what I'll be doing, as I have a couple minutes to spare at work.--Urthogie 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  there are better sources available than... 

message: The paragraph accusing the HGDP of "cultural insensitivity, neocolonialism, and biopiracy" is Original Research, meaning it introduces an opinion unrelated to the discussion of the genetics of ancient egypt.  This quote is appropriate for the page on the HGDP, but not for this page.--Urthogie 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research removed 

message: :Some ignore genetic research showing the Sahara desert to be the dividing line between Negroid and Caucasoid populations, and instead define the ancient Egyptians as Black for the simple reason that they may have been dark skinned African natives.  However this argument is strongly challenged by research showing that the original inhabitants of Egypt were unlikely to have dark complexions for the simple reason that the skin color of indigenous populations are adapted through natural selection to the climate where they live, and Egypt is not a region that produces dark skin.  
:Others however argue that the Von Luschan scale of skin color is not an effective way of determining "polygenetic relationships".    
:Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups.</blockquote>(N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, J Hum Evol, 2000)http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/skincolor.html
:Mainstream consensus is that the first settled inhabitants of the Nile valley arrived there relatively recent, so Afrocentrists argue that their skin color didn't necessarily always need to reflect North African/Middle Eastern climate since they claim that migration was from the south near Saharan/Sudanic zones. Even renowned Afrocentric critic  Mary Lefkowitz attests to this theory.      Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."
http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/not-out.htm
The meaning of skin color and race are supposed to be covered in the Background: Race section.  Please don't get the article muddled in definitions in the middle, people.  Thanks, --Urthogie 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed text 

message: « The evidence suggests, it would appear, Saharan to mountainous North Africa was inhabited from an early date by quite diverse populations, some of which in modern popular perception would be 'white' "European" in appearance, some intermediate and some "black African." The argument about what 18th century Americans would percieve as to these ancient populations race is modern American race politics, not science. It should be discussed under such articles, not loaded on the backs of long dead Egyptians, whether "white" middle or otherwise. collounsbury 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Europeans did not inhabit Africa from an early date 

message: The article is heavily biased right now with obvious racist views that it doesn't even make sense any more.  I read that Nubian aren't black and that Ethiopians have strong Caucasian admixture.  Nubians are about the blackest people you will find, and Ethiopian look the way they do because of their environment.  Mountainous, that is why Somalis look so different than Ethiopians, Mountains make you lighter, straighter hair, longer nose, but not 'mixed' with caucasian necesaarily.  By that logic native americans with flat noses and dark skin are black. 
Further I see the silly equation of negroid with blackness.  Negros are only one type of blacks, like Germanic is only one type of white.  With all likely hood the Egyptian had dark brown/black skin as we see in their painting.  They weren't as black as the Nubians but they obviously had brown skin.  They obviously weren't white cause we syrian and the egyptian is nowhere near him in skin color.  The Egyptians weren't Bantus for sure, Bantus may not have even existed then, they most likely were like the Nubians in physical features but lighter cause they lived further North.  We know as a fact that Egypt gets to 130 degrees hot on average in the summer, so I just can't fairly argue that they were caucasian cause it doesn't make sense.  They would get sunburn everyday.  They would have looked like Nubians but lighter cause they have similar climates and terrian just nubia is further south.  We know in Egyptology that ancient Egyptians came from the South anyways because it was a migration pattern.  To argue that they are even part causian, you have to believe thaat man after leaving africa and going all the way to persia came back and displaced the black who settled in egypt in large enough numbers (millions) to change the populations characteristics.  Did this happen?  Yes it did, but not likely until the new kingdom or perhaps the middle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Negro or negroid is not actually a scientific term.  I therefore don't think you know what you're talking about.--Urthogie 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "How black" "how white"?  No, that's not the debate at all.  The debate is over their demographics, and their genetics.  Black and white are not scientific terms whatsoever.--Urthogie 22:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly Debate Continues 

message: To: Race and ancient Egypt.  Why? Because "Racial characteristics" is not a good title-- it suggests that such "racial" characteristics truly exist, a sentiment most anthropologists would disagree with.--Urthogie 00:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea. 71.142.103.87 01:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is debate over the influence of Arabs on the indigenous Egyptians.  It's not clear cut that the Egyptians looked a lot differently before they were invaded.  Therefore, the modern skin map (according to some theories) would indicate a similarity to ancient Egyptians.  Read the section on Demographics for more on this.--Urthogie 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "False?"  According to you.  Wikipedia present various reliable opinions, not just what you deem correct.--Urthogie 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."Lefkowitz, Mary "Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History," Basic Books, 1997Taharqa 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested move 

message: I had to change the description of the first study in the Crania section accordingly. It's a 1993 study, not from 2005 as it was previously stated. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt_and_race#_note-10
Clines and clusters versus "Race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the Death on the Nile
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace.pdf
C. Loring Brace, David P. Tracer, Lucia Allen Yaroch, John Robb, Kari Brandt and A. Russell Nelson. 1993. Clines and clusters versus "race:" A test in ancient Egypt and a case of a death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:26
^I just noticed that this same 1993 study was cited three different times. Wow.. That's weird.
Taharqa 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, where I read it the first time it said 2005 because it was being republished.--Urthogie 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study not from 2005 

message: “The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans. This is my view. Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to argue with you more as we'll just go back and forth but lemme say this:  the mesopotamian influence on egypt was may have been small.  My previous impression was that Mesopotamian demographic effects were significant.  But thanks to some recent stuff I've looked into thanks to Tarqha, I've changed my view on this.  I've learned this as I researched more.  However, this does not rule out the possibility of changes in appearence through selection.  Dynastic egypt was created thousands of years after Egypt was settled.  This is plenty of time for changes to develop in response to climate. Selection seems to be the most credible hypothesis, because cranial studies have found significant  enough differences between ancient Egyptians, to the point where they cannot be grouped with any of their neighbors, neither mesopotamian nor african.--Urthogie 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the studies (the 1993 one, for example) apparently were able to group sub-Saharan africans together, but not Egyptians, so this suggests it's not just in the realm of regular variation of that area.--Urthogie 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems doubtful that changes in craniums would happen faster than changes in skin with a change in climate.  Think about the fitness and selective pressure acting here on a cooler climate...--Urthogie 01:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, is "early ancient period" dynastic?  Second off, the source seems to suggest a significant effect from Mesopotamia, which contradicts your view that there was no significant effect.  Take a pick, one of your views has to be wrong.  Lastly, I didn't say Egypt was "cool" I said it was "cooler".  Don't misquote me, it weakens your argument.--Urthogie 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We're just repeating points in this section.  Let's stick to the previous one to discuss.--Urthogie 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nile Valley Civilizations are older than Mesopotamian Civilizations 

message: The only feature we see is his nose and his lips which are thick black african lips.  We can see his nose from the side so we can't tell if it is causian or not but his head shape is definitley negorid
:"Negroid" is a scientific fossil.  There's no such thing as "negroid".--Urthogie
::I very much second that statement.Chiwara 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facial reconstructions have come to different conclusions, but who are you going to believe, a bunch of scientists or a wikipedia editor?--Urthogie 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Scientists, not just artists, have reconstructed his face as well and come to quite different conclusions than in 2002 (without even being told who he was, so you can't call them "racists").  They come to different conclusions, some showing he looked similar to a tropical african, others that he looked more stereotypically middle eastern.  They, for some reason, aren't as sure as you about what he looked like.  They make this clear.  By the way, I find it somewhat disrespectful/ignorant that you think I don't contibute to this page much, except to make it crappy and illogical.  Look at what the page looked like before I started editing it.  Go way back.  You've done some great work here but it has mainly been in adding more sources and making a great lead.  I organized the article to even make it possible to edit this way before you came here.  I named every single section as they are today (except one or two subheadings of research that have been added).--Urthogie 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're wrong to say computerized results of mummies will always be the same.  There's always some guessing and conjecture and inference involved, they (spell this out/make this clear) in the 2005 reconstruction story, how they admit its not perfect.  Obviously the same is true of 2002 and earlier CT scans.  They're not perfect.  New info/conjecture can have the effect of improving or degrading the results.  It all depends.--Urthogie 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Taharqa. Please, read this article which speaks about the sub Saharan origin of the Greeks! For sure, some expressions, like "Caucasian", applied to Africans show remainings of a biased mentality. But in general, this article sheds a new light on a controversial subject  (http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf). Many thanks for your contributions. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King tuts caucasoid features? 

message: Language as a way to classify "race"
Complications have also cropped up in the use of linguistics as a basis for racial categorization. The demise of the famous "Hamitic Hypothesis", which purported to show that certain African languages around the Nile area could be associated with "Caucasoid" peoples is a typical case. Such schemes fell apart when it was demonstrated that Negro tribes far distant also spoke similar languages, tongues that were supposedly a reserved marker of Caucasoid presence or influence.Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963) The Languages of Africa. International journal of American linguistics, 29, 1, part 2  For work on African languages, see Wiki article Languages of Africa and Joseph Greenberg.
Older linguistic classifications are also linked to the notion of a "Hamitic race", a vague grouping thought to exclude Negroes, but accommodating a large variety of dark skinned North and East Africans into a broad-based Caucasoid grouping. This Caucasoid "Hamitic race" is sometimes credited with the introduction of more advanced culture, such as certain plant cultivation and particularly the domestication of cattle. This scheme has also been discredited by the work of post WWII archaeologists such as A. Arkell, who demonstrated that predynastic and Sudanic Negroid elements already possessed cattle and plant domestication, thousands of years before the supposed influx of Caucasoid or Hamitic settlers into the Nile Valley, Nubia and adjoining areas.Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, 1984 ed, Vol 13, "Nilotic Sudan, History Of", p. 108 
Modern scholarship has moved away from earlier notions of a "Hamitic" race speaking Hamito-Semitic languages, and places the Egyptian language in a more localized context, centered around its general Saharan and Nilotic roots.(F. Yurco "An Egyptological Review", 1996)Yurco, op. cit.  Linguistic analysis (Diakanoff 1998) places the origin of the Afro-Asiatic languages in northeast Africa, with older strands south of Egypt, and newer elements straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai.M.Diakonoff, Journal of Semitic Studies, 43,209 (1998)
Beja
Many scholars believe the Beja to be derived from early Egyptians because of their language and physical features. They are the indigenous people of this area, and we first know of them in historical references in the Sixth Dynasty of ancient Egypt. 
The Beja people are an ancient Cushitic people closely kin to the ancient Egyptians,1978 http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/bejagirl.html who have lived in the desert between the Nile river and the Red Sea since at least 25000 BC.
See Seligman, C. G. Races of Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press,Taharqa 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taharqa. Please, read this article which speaks about the sub Saharan origin of the Greeks! For sure, some expressions, like "Caucasian", applied to Africans show remainings of a biased mentality. But in general, this article sheds a new light on a controversial subject  (http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf). Many thanks for your contributions. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Uthorgie, I have the impression that you don't know well the chronology of ancient Egypt and that of your classical civilizations (Rome, Israel, Greece...). How can you put in question the tesimony of Diodorus of Sicily based on Egyptian and Nubian (Ethiopian) informants? These were Blacks. No dought about that. Diodorus of Sicily lived in 1st century BCE. Herodotus lived in the 5th century BCE. Their testimony is more important than the findings of Archeologists because they were witness of the events they were reporting and of the color of the skin of the people they met. We know, thanks to them, that up to their time the Inhabitants of Egypt were still Blacks. Archeology can have more weight in case of contradictions between ancient writers. But we know that there is not. Urthogie, are you going to make people believe that our testimony (based on our eyes) on the colors of the skin of the people of today is not useful because these colors will only be determined by the Archeologists of the future? Actually, you have the same reaction than that of the many biased Western Egyptologists who refuse to consider ancient writings on Egypt as sources of Egyptology. Other sciences do not have that complex. They start from the same writers who strangely enough are found genius! So I am sorry for Urthogie, ancient Egyptians were Blacks. Your Archeologists, be them from America or from Japan, are making fantasy when they try to contradict the Egyptians, the Nubians, the Greeks, the Arabs and the Hebrews about the blackness of the Egyptians which was obvious in those ancient times. This article of Wikipedia must include a section on the testimony of ancient literature on the race of the ancient Egyptians. Up to now I only have texts in Italian and French. If you have access to English versions of Herodotus, Aristotle..., please Urthogie, have the courage to begin writing that section. Objectivity in science means to be able to bow before an evidence. Or maybe Taharqa has already access to that ancient literature in English? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would someone from the 5th century or 1st century BCE be a reliable source for what ancient Egyptians looked like 2/3 thousand years eariler.  Nkuka Luka's answer: because they're black. Also, we already went over Herodotus's testimony earlier, and I shared my views of why his testimony is no less definitive than his view that Ethiopians had black semen.--Urthogie 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, I see that you never read Herodotus and other ancient writers we are talking about here. Herodotus was speaking about the Egyptians of his time. These people were at that time still black. You don't have to pick out a mistake made by somebody to say that everything he said is wrong (you do also make mistakes, but one cannot say that because of that you always make mistakes). Who knows? This statement by Herodotus about the semen of the Blacks (can you give me the reference?) can be more subtle than you imagine. He was maybe speaking about "the hidden color" we will call today "genetic". It is the case that a semen of a Black cannot produce a White and vice versa. Be careful Urthogie with your statements. Let's come back to the issue of the color of the ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egypt goes from The Unification (Thinite period 31000) to the end of the Second Domination of the Persians (332). But we can also come up to the Roman Domination (30 BCE-337 CE). The ancient writers are describing Egyptians who were contemporary to them, but who are ancient to us. Herodotus or Aristotle were not describing Egyptians of the time of the Unification of Egypt, but those of the Late Period. They said "they are black", "they are very black". They met these Egyptians, they lived with them side by side. And Urthogie says: "Herodotus, Aristotle were blind, stupid..". The Egyptians at the time of Herodotus and Aristotle were still part of the Black people. That is what you don't want to hear because it is a powerful testimony. So, Urthogie, do you really mind finding that literature in English and add it to the article? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Taharqa for yours findings. They are so clear and convincing! As I said I only have some of them in French and Italian. Now, can you find more, including Herodotus (The Persian Wars or Histories [the title changes depending on editors], §§ 55-57, § 104). Then, would you like creating a section right some where in the top of the article dedicated to those tesimonies of the ancient writers who lived side by side with the Egyptians and the Nubians (Ethiopians)? It will be a big loss if an article of this kind (Ancient Egypt and Race or Racial Caracteristics of the ancient Egyptians) ignores the contribution of the ancient scholars. I presume many people are not aware of it. Urthogie, I think, won't disagree with the suggestion of creating a section on that contribution. Once again, thank you Taharqa for your willingness to make know and understand Ancient African History as it really is. Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The testimony of the ancient Historians

message: *I added a history section.  Please add to it so that it includes Artistotle and Herodotus and such.  Please add to it.
*Taraqh, can you make the changes we discussed about your most recent edits?--Urthogie 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, European Jews are more clustered together, much like African Americans because of the historical bottle neck.  I'll check out your changes, ok.--Urthogie 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions 

message: A side note, to these arguments about ancient history and such: I recognize that the Egyptians had wooly hair, and dark skin when Herodotus and Aristotle went to them.  The question is how black and how wooly-- there are arabs who can be described as dark skinned with wooly hair, but are nonetheless recognized as arab in today's society.  For example I have a friend here from Saudi Arabia who fits that description.  Another issue that remains in such arguments is that they probably had the "Caucasoid" craniometry associated with Ethiopians.--Urthogie 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, Herodotus knows the Arabs or their ancestors. He speaks of "the Syrians of Palestine". He never, as far as I know, associates them to the Egyptians. But most of the ancient writers do associate the Egyptians to the Ethiopians. Urthogie, don't misunderstand the word "Ethiopia". It doesn't refer to the "Ethiopians" of today! The "Ethiopia" of the Greeks of the time of Aristotle are the Nubians. And for Aristotle as for Herodotus and other writers, the Egyptians are always associated to the Nubians. That is the simple truth found in the literature we are talking about. Arabs have nothing to do with the ancient Egyptians. Arabs, as black as they can be, are not natives of Africa where they entered to settle only in 7th century CE. They might be Asian Blacks. Egyptians are African natives after all. They are African Black. Avoid, please, mixing arguments. How black are they? For Aristotle, according to the quotations made by Taharka, they are very black: "Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two." (Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a). For Marcellinus, one found brown and black colors among them: "...the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look." (Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII para 16) (Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317). As I pointed in the past, quoting the Historian Ki-Zerbo, the brown complexion is part of the black race. It was found in Egypt (Marcellus is clear on that), in Nubia (LoLguys gave recently nice pictures of mixed brown and black Nubians in the tomb of Hue) and among Blacks of today in Africa (Ki-Zerbo). The blackness of the ancient Egyptians is really not a problem for somebody reflecting on this subject without bias or a racist anti african black background. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestine wasn't Arab at this point in history.  Syria wasn't Arab till the 7th century.  So you're just proving my point.  Also, suggesting I have a racist or anti-african bias is completely untrue.--Urthogie 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussions

message: Which source establishes the connection between cultural evidence and genetic evidence?
Early culture, from whence it developed and the surrounding areas who had input and/or shared culture with Egypt from the start. Which is why I put what I put under culture to begin with, because it was the only thing relevant to the article at the time. I have no idea why you insist on mentioning Crete, obviously Nubia and Lybia had much more of a connection to Egypt than far away Crete.. It's confusing to me why you insist on mentioning them, especially when Crete is not known to have any real cultural ties with Egypt, and in reference to Egypt, Crete really just isn't  important at all and theres no reason to mention them. But I guess I can get rid of the culture section if it seems problematic, because indeed culture can be (in a lot of cases) suggestive of, but not implicit of the "racial" or ethnic identity of a given group..Taharqa 15:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a source.  Otherwise it's original research.  A source is required to draw the connection, even if it's true.  So do you mind if I remove it?  The only reason I ever added that section header in the first place is because the French wikipedia article had such a heading.--Urthogie 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  genetics and culture 

message: Urthogie, the image removed is not a picture, but a copy by Minutoli in 1820. In "geocities" http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html, the photograph is on the left side and the copy on the right side. So you can see both of them. As the subject we are dealing with is very sensitive, I suggest we put the photograph in the article rather than the drawing. It will be the same case with the representation of the races in the tomb of Ramesses III. The drawing made of it is a big falsification which cannot be tolerated in an article such as this on "ancient Egypt and race". Lusala lu ne Nkuka--82.88.213.182 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well I can't find any photographs that are in good condition with good lighting dealing with the Egyptian concept of race.  I suppose we'll remove both.  What images do you think could benefit this article, then?--Urthogie 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the Nubians, I suggest that we put the picture of the Nubians in the tomb of Huy given once by LoLGuys http://www.dignubia.org/maps/timeline/img/b1540a-nubian-tribute-huy.jpg, and for the Egyptians, the Libyans and the Syrians, the picture of the races in the tomb of Ramesses found in geocities http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one doesn't seem to be Wikipedia:Fair use, and the second one is foreign races, but not Egyptian ones.--Urthogie 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the argument is that they're mislabeled, not that they couldn't define themselves.  But this is a source which says it.  You're free to disagree.--Urthogie 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What prove do you have that they are mislabeled? This is a Eurocentric view which thinks that Western Egyptologists are more intelligent than the Egyptian scribes and artists. Science implies also humility. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelligence isn't defined as not making mistakes, and intelligence isn't defined as a group trait.  I can supply a source and the reason they give, if you insist.--Urthogie 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Urthogie, I am eager to know your "source and the reason they give" to demonstrate that the Egyptian scribes or artists did mistakes while drawing and painting Egyptians. Egypt is neither in Europe nor in Asia. It is in Africa. Africa is the cradle of humanity and saw the birth of the first civilization. All the testimonies tend to shaw that ancient Egyptians were Blacks, be some of them dark and some brown, as it is still the case among Black populations in Africa and the diaspora. This is a simple fact. According to me, Cheikh Anta Diop http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm and Basil Davidson http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa do really provide the best summuries of what we can know and verify today about the race and the origin of the ancient Egyptians. Eurocentric scholars do not want to hear that. But they will have to remove Egypt from Africa and place it in America, Europe or Asia, and put also the cradle of humanity in one of those three continents. We are waiting to see their next move. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start a new talk page section if you want to discuss your opinion on ancient egyptian race.  This section is simply on a given image?  By the way, I will look into the issue of why they say it was mislabeled.  If you assume, and they give a good reason, you'll look very presumptious and rude.  So hold it for a second.--Urthogie 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, this is the second time you are making your promise! Remember that there are still images to be discussed namely the image [7] http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/15652.jpg of the section "Ancient Egyptian view". Somebody, it might be you, wrote that he is a Nubian. Actually, that man is an Egyptian! Let me wait a bit for your findings. I am sorry if I look "presumptious and rude" to you. As you are not an African, you maybe won't realize easily how Eurocentric thinking has harmed Africa and Africans during centuries. But this has to come to an end. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it wasn't Eurocentrism that conquered Africa, but guns and money, and the human will towards power.  As far as the Nubian image, the egyptologist Yurco seems to have addressed the misconceptions.  The people who disagree with him are on Egyptsearch.com forums.  They're not exactly notable.--Urthogie 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Yurco! He thought he can say anything he wants and be convincing because he is Yurco! You were yourself desapointed by his arguments when you wrote: "I agree, there's heated debate over that and Yurco expects people to take his word for it, regardless of the fact that the Nubian looking people are called "Rm.T in the photo, only Egyptians are Rm.t, and he never explained that. In my opinion Yurco may be right but I can't just take his word for it, especially when there's things that he avoided explaining and he never took a photo to validate his claim. You have one person who went there and took a photo to prove it, claiming that the tomb pictures are real. Then you have some one else who claims to have gone there, but has no pictures to prove it, and he says it's fake. It really means nothing either way to me and doesn't effect my opinion. They're discussing and analyzing it thoroughly in this thread on Egypt Search. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004936..". Those people called Nubians are just Egyptians as put it clearly the Egyptian scribes and artists. By the way, even the picture [7] I spoke about earlier have to be removed or renamed Egyptian. It is said in the article that the Black man in the picture is a Nubian. But we know thanks to the hieroglyphs that he is an Egyptian. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Urthogie, you said: "Sorry, but it wasn't Eurocentrism that conquered Africa, but guns and money, and the human will towards power". Actually, be it Eurocentrism or not, the truth could be this: "Europeans are masters at destroying other peoples histories". I found this quotation in "Egypt Search...". Maybe you won't desagree with it. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no unified "Western" culture.  And I don't care about some false opinion on Egypt Search.--Urthogie 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over images

message: In a work by E. A. Wallis Budge, I distinctly remember a plate showing hieroglyphics next to reliefs of egyptians enslaving nubians. The nubians thereon clearly had thicker, coarser and more wirey hair, darker skin, and much more prognathism than the Egyptians so depicted, although, the Egyptians seemed to be more dolichocephalic. Does anyone know the source of the image? It might be one of the 'gods of the Egyptians' books, or a work on hieroglyphics in particular. This relief was a period work. Later accounts by Greeks as given in the article would be that of a differing "racial" type than those of the period of those earlier Egyptians dynasties. 67.5.157.48 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a photograph or an artistic rendering? Have you ever seen representations of pharaoh Akhnaton and his family? http://www.crystalinks.com/akhnaton.html Who said that only Nubians look like that? A Study on Egyptian names "the black" and "the red" showed that there were more dark skin people in Egypt than the brown ones. Besides, let's not forget that there are brown and dark Nubians http://www.dignubia.org/maps/timeline/img/b1540a-nubian-tribute-huy.jpg. Among Black people, we still have these brown and dark colours. Are not Egyptians from Nubian origin? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nubians next to Egyptians in hieroglyphic dipictions