Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 12

message: ===Need for a new section===
Taharqa, Zerida and Egyegy, I am suggesting this. We leave the section Ancient writers as it stands now. There is no need of braking it into subsections. It focuses on one thing: the testimony of ancient writers on the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians as they knew it. It does not have to contain critics to those ancient writers. But, we can create a new section with the heading Modern writers. This section can be broken into subsections such as Ancient Egyptians were Whites originated from Europe and / or Asia, Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Black Africans, Ancient Egyptians were a mix of foreign Whites and indigenous Black Africans. Quotations added to Ancient writers (Snowden...) and to Sphinx (Budge...), writers quoted in Egyptian response and in Alleged eurocentrism in Egyptology will find their place in the subsections of the new section. This means that the section Alleged eurocentrism in Egyptology has to be incorporated to the new section. And the suggested section Egyptian response will be as well incorporated in that new section. Do you agree?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More discussions 2 

message: Taharqa, Zerida and Egyegy, I am suggesting this. We leave the section Ancient writers as it stands now. There is no need of braking it into subsections. It focuses on one thing: the testimony of ancient writers on the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians as they knew it. It does not have to contain critics to those ancient writers. But, we can create a new section with the heading Modern writers. This section can be broken into subsections such as Ancient Egyptians were Whites originated from Europe and / or Asia, Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Black Africans, Ancient Egyptians were a mix of foreign Whites and indigenous Black Africans. Quotations added to Ancient writers (Snowden...) and to Sphinx (Budge...), writers quoted in Egyptian response and in Alleged eurocentrism in Egyptology will find their place in the subsections of the new section. This means that the section Alleged eurocentrism in Egyptology has to be incorporated to the new section. And the suggested section Egyptian response will be as well incorporated in that new section. Do you agree?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for a new section

message: we see here in this discussion the question of the race of the egyptians,its self evident by the colors of the egyptian people are clearly not of caucasian group egyptians dont generally have red hair,blue eyes,green or grey eyes they posses african features similar to the SAN peoples of the sahara they DID NOT develop in EUROPE they developed a civilization thousands of years before Europeans this agreees with the fact that the africans were the earliest people and therefore developed  civilization first  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.164.110 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  african egypyians 

message: Misconceptions should in no way be avoided so this is what I'll address. 
In fact, yes, Kushites are simply Kushites, and Nubians are simply Nubians. The difference here is for a scholar to argue that Nubians should not be considered black when they clearly were and still are is pointless. They also views themselves as black.
* Apparently and unfortunately, Zerida doesn't seem privy to the political situation in Sudan and how this situation has effected identity in the region. Many Northern Sudanese actually consider themselves Arab, "black" is a label imposed on them by outsiders, such as yourself. So this is demonstrably wrong and exemplifies the double standard. 
* Zerida says they were "black" in the past (a socio-political term in the 21rst century) as they are now. Well if true, it seems that even today Southern Egyptians are more closely related to Nubians or Northern Sudanese than they are to even Northern Egyptians/Northern Egypt (which we know has a higher density of foreigners). Possessing/sharing southern haplotype frequencies by way of the Y-Chromosome (V,XI and IV or E3b2, E3b1) at a much higher percentage than in northern Egypt, with northern Egypt actually being an outliner in this respect. - []
This is repeated with Mtdna, showing a close, ancestral relationship with Ethiopians near the Tigre region. So the sought after dichotomy that one group is "black" while these people over here are exempt from classification, even though the two groups in question are related and always have been by all indication, is just a ruse. 
* Concerning Jahiz, Snowden never referenced Jahiz and it can be clearly shown that Jahiz never includes inhabitants of Mainland China, but rather he says "Indo-China" and between Ethiopia and India. Many of those people were often referred to by the Greeks as "Eastern Ethiopians" and in modern usage they were called Dravidian/Australoid, or Veddoid. Berbers also come in a variety of complexions, many of whom are considered black, especially the Tuareg, groups whom Jahiz was most likely citing since he considered all groups to be darker than Arabs and grouped them within the same "race" as the Zanj. Also, he specifically notes that the natives of Egypt can be described as such, as the distinction implies, there were others in Egypt aside from the natives, which is why he refers to the natives using the same terminology that Arabs of the time used to describe the modern Sudan. So either people of the time were speaking relatively when they named modern Sudan, "land of the "blacks", or they meant it when they called someone black. No need for double standards where not needed. Ironically he is echoed by Volney centuries later, though I'd suspect Volney's emphasis was exclusively on features rather than complexion as well.
In any event, this study I'm about to cite says it all basically (the actual title and implications). The Nubians of today were most closely related to the aboriginal Egyptians then, as they are today (the aboriginals that is). Therefore, if one is black, so is the other, or otherwise we should stop double talking and drop this kind of terminology indefinitely and appeal to Keita's professional terminology in classifying the early Nile Valley peoples. They were "Saharo-Tropical African Variants" (which also includes the group formerly known as Negros and excludes non-Africans):
Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt. 
A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other.
A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt. - American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 101, Issue 2, October 1996, Pages: 237-246
For those unfamiliar with the terminology;
Endogamy/Endogamous - Biology: Reproduction by the fusion of gametes of similar ancestry.
^^And indeed, the charts show each respective population clustering closely with themselves and more remotely with each other. So much data substantiating the relationship between these groups that it almost seems insane to create a false dichotomy, and according to Frank Yurco, it is. So I believe the politics of identity (who is an "Egyptian", what is a "Nubian", blah, blah) is notable, but ultimately useless when one allows the data to speak for its self with out obscured interpretations from wiki editors (including myself).. 
One more thing.. This is what Keita and Boyce says about Snowden's views:
 - S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27
That's about it, and this was only addressed because I want (and I hope others agree) to prevent politics from being too much of a distraction in the article, as I feel it has been overemphasized here a bit too much at the expense of the data and its implications. Views vary and pushing one view as "mainstream" really does nothing for us since it isn't sufficient in elaborating on the question or topic presented by the article's title. The consensus also seems to be that the people of Egypt, or the cultural forbeaers and founders of the state, were indeed indigenous to the Nile Valley and were closely related to A-Group Nubians. So much so that Bruce Williams of the Oriental Institute proposed an Egyptian origin in Nubia, based on his findings at Qustul. Some of his evidence has been overshadowed by newer findings (casting doubt on the "origin" scenario), but the same theme is reoccurring. That these people were ethnically and culturally the same/extremely similar and most likely shared common origins, with one being emphatically regarded as black while the other is generally protected from categorization and public scrutiny, which is politically suspect to some seeing as how nothing indicates a dichotomy between the latter and the former. Which is why my emphasis has always been on the data.......Taharqa 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Taharqa! This post is illuminating, because well informed.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining power in Egypt and Nubia

message: This article is protected too often. I hope we can avoid edit wars because protection is becoming unhelpful. Muntuwandi 05:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest mediation. Yahel Guhan 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection 2

message: Egyegy, please, stop removing entire sections from the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't suppress sections without discussing the issue

message: Instead of choosing to discuss and gain a consensus, Dab chooses to make nonsensical edits, propsing mergers with "population history of ancient Egypt" and "Afrocentrism".. What dab doesn't realize is that we've already had months worth of discussion to form a consensus on merging population history with appearance of the ancient Egyptians. User:Zerida is the one who eventually merged it, and we all agreed. 
You, tagging random sections as lacking relevancy without elaborating seems like pov aswell, not to mention your proposed merger with "afrocentrism", when there are relatively no afrocentrists cited in this article, nor are the ones who were considered so given undue weight (namely just Diop), which is why me and Zerida (and others) are trying to discuss the disputed aspects of the article. Please cease from your destructive behavior dab, as you're trying to undermine progress as we're trying to establish a productive dialogue here, with out your irrelevant and minority pov. You have no consensus for your proposal and we have already established the consensus for a merger. You've already participated in one pov-fork dealing with this article and are trying to create another.Taharqa 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, Accusing other editors of "Pov pushing" is unhelpful. Secondly, From reading this article, It's clearly a topic of Afrocentrism. Whether or not this entire article should be merged there is another discussion though, but there is no doubt that it's an Afrocentrism topic. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times does this article mention "Afrocentric" or "Afrocentricists"? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dbachmann's pov-pushing

message: Wikidudeman, whoever knows the history of migrations cannot say what Hawass is saying. And maybe he never said that. Arabs are not indigenous to Africa. But Egyptians are. They are from the Sahara, exactly where those who are called Sub-Saharan Africans are from. And they began creating their civilisation from south (Nubia) to north. Later Egyptians moved to the interior of Africa trying to escape the persecutions of the Persians. Please, whatch this video by Basil Davidson Kemet - Black Civilization.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arab's are semitic and didn't come from Sub-Saharan Africa but from what today is the middle east.[]. Hawass never said that Arabs are indigenous to Africa. Please read the article initially posted above. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you provide actually details the forensic evidence based on the facial features of the mummy, The two country team concluded that the individual reconstructed (King Tut) was of Caucasoid North African stock. That's what the scientific team concluded based on their reconstruction and findings. The American team actually KNEW that the individual was North-African without ever knowing who exactly it was, so it was a blind study in that sense. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the study, is if you look at Tut in profile, he does not look "Caucasoid". Muntuwandi 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The experts concluded that he did. You're thinking "Caucasoid" equals "White" or "Anglo Saxon" but in fact it doesn't. The team of experts concluded that his features were North African Caucasoid so personal interpretations of the image would be Original Research. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: discovery reconstruction. Muntuwandi 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What about it? Are you saying that it looks more "Black" than the initial one? I disagree. The black background makes it look darker and it's a low quality image to begin with, however the facial features are almost identical. Unless you can show me where the Discovery team concluded that he was NOT Caucasoid north African but was "black" then I don't think it's very relevant. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say he was more black, you did. The point is there have been a number of reconstructions and they aren't necessarily in agreement. Muntuwandi 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Some aspects of the king's appearance, however, are destined to remain mysterious. The shape of the top of his nose and of his ears, as well as the color of his eyes and skin, cannot be determined by CT scan skull data. These features are likely to remain forever unknownMuntuwandi 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excessive use of  POV tags is not going to resolve problems with this article. This is the most tagged article I have seen. It just obscures readability. Muntuwandi 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Who says the reconstructions aren't in agreement? Some have lighter and some have darker skin tones but the basic facial characteristics are the same. Concluding they aren't in agreement is O.R. The one team mentioned concluded that he was of North African Caucasoid extraction and no other reconstruction teams contradicted that. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The tags are necessary as there are numerous separate issues with this article that one tag won't cover. Readers need to be aware of this. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikidudeman, there are no Caucasoid indigenous to Africa. No African region is known as Caucasia or Caucasus. Africa before any foreign invasions was  populated by Blacks. Sub-Saharan Blacks are from the Sahara. Egyptian, who are actually part of the Nubians, are a mix of local black populations and black people from the Sahara. Did you watch Basil Davidson? If King Tut is Caucasoid, it means that his ancestors are not indigenous Africans. Which may be true. By this time, Whites have already invaded Africa. These minorities did not change the ethnicity of the Egyptians. On the contrary they have been assimilated. The Fulani or Peul of West Africa are thought to be offsprings of assimilated Whites by black populations in northen Egypt (Diop and lam wrote about that issue). But, the history of Egyptology shows that it is quite impossible to convince people about any whiteness of the ancient Egyptians, especialy those of the first dynasties, without falsifying facts.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources disagree. Please provide reliable sources saying that Egyptians are a mixture of "local black populations" and people from the Sahara. You also need to define what "black" means. Does "black" mean having skin the color of say Al-Sharpton? If that's the case then indigenous Egyptians aren't "black". The source found here says clearly that Tug was a North African Caucasoid.  Wikidudeman (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans

message: I would agree to the proposed split if the "Population history" article was kept strictly scientific, which means no Afrocentric authors, no Nordic theories, no 19th-century travelogues etc.; and certainly no selective quotations and/or exclusion of legitimate studies on the topic. I've always maintained that violations of UNDUE like the aforementioned should go into their own articles or be kept in an article about the controversy itself. Because some editors preferred the latter, I opted for the title change as a compromise. I am still open to other compromises. — Zerida 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No split is necessary. It was tried before. One would need to make the same edits in two articles at the same time. Better to have everything in one place. There is already an article History of ancient Egypt, that is non racial. Muntuwandi 03:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The split is not necessary. I agree with Muntuwandi.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Yurco, according to a post by Zerida, accuses Diop of transforming kmt from an adjective into a noun. Kmt is not kmtyw, Zerida. Kmt-A1 is really a noun, while kmtyw is a nisbe (In Bantu languages the nisbe exists too. It is not peculiar to semitic languages like arabic). You find it in Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, p. 286. Faulkner translates it into Egyptians. But this is not a litteral translation. The litteral translation is the Black people. Kmt-A1 comes from the papyrus of Kahun. Look for example at Plate III, lines 3 and 5. You click on the pages in order to turn them. . Concerning kmt, Yurco is totally wrong.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, If "Diop" is a notable individual then they can be included in the article also. We just say what Diop says and also say what Yurco says. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kmt

message: Wikidudeman, Davidson researched on African History. Ancient Egypt is an African civilisation. Don't forget that! If you try to study Egypt against the rest of Africa you will arrive to strange conclusions. Eurocentric Egyptologists already made this big mistake of thinking that Egyptians are from spontaneous generation! Have you read Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology? He wrote: "Mais ce n'est point à l'histoire seule de l'Egypte proprement dite que les études hiéroglyphiques peuvent fournir de précieuses lumières; elles nous montrent déjà la Nubie comme ayant, aux époques les plus reculées, participé à tous les avantages de la civilisation égyptienne. L'importance, le nombre et sur-tout l'antiquite des monumens qu'on y admire, édifices contemporains de tout ce que la plaine de Thèbes offre de plus ancien, sont déjà, pour l'histoire, des faits capitaux qui l'arrêtent en ébranlant les bases du système adopté jusqu'ici sur l'origine du peuple égyptien. Il doit se demander, en effet, si la civilisation de Thèbes a remonté le Nil, la peuplade qui forme la nation égyptienne venant de l'Asie, ou si bien cette civilisation, arrivant du midi, descendant avec le fleuve sacré, ne s'est pas établie d'abord dans la Nubie, ensuite dans la partie la plus méridionale de la Thébaïde, et si, s'avancant successivement vers le nord, elle n'a point enfin, secondée par les efforts du fleuve, repoussé les eaux de la Méditerranée, et conquis pour l'agriculture la vaste plaine de la basse Egypte, contiguë à l'Asie. Dans cette hypothèse nouvelle, les Egyptiens seraient une race propre a l'Afrique, particulière à cette vieille partie du monde, qui montre par-tout des traces d'épouisement et de décrépitude. / La constitution physique, les moeurs, les usages et l'organisation sociale des Egyptiens, n'avaient jadis, en effet, que de tres faibles analogies avec l'état naturel et politique des peuples de l'Asie occidentale, leurs plus proches voisins. La langue égyptienne enfin n'avait rien de commun, dans sa marche constitutive, avec les langues asiatiques: elle diffère tout aussi essentiellement que les écritures de l'Egypte diffèrent des anciennes écritures des Phéniciens, des Babyloniens et des Perses. Ces deux derniers faits paraitront deja concluans, et peuvent trancher la question en faveur de la seconde hypothèse, l'origine africaine des Egyptiens, aux yeux des savants qui se sont occupés de l'histoire de la migration des anciens peuples. Tout semble, en effet, nous montrer dans les Egyptiens un peuple tout-à-fait étranger au continent asiatique. / On conçoit difficilement aussi que la peuplade souche de la nation égyptienne, à quelque état inférieur de civilisation qu'on la suppose, ait pu se fixer et se propager d'abord dans la vallée de l'Egypte, entre la première cataracte et la Méditerranée, terrain exposé annuellement à une longue et complète inondation. C'est bien plutôt sur un point élevé, dans un pays que l'inondation ne couvre jamais entièrement, que durent être faits les premiers établissements; et sous ce rapport, la Nubie, et mieux l'Ethiopie, présentèrent de tout temps des localités avantageuses. / (...) il fut un temps ou la partie civilisée de l'Ethiopie, la presqu'île de Méroé, et les abords du Nil entre Méroé et Dongola, étaient habités par un peuple qui avait une langue, une écriture et des arts semblables à ceux de l'Egypte, sans dépendre pour cela des rois égyptiens ou de Thèbes ou de Memphis. / Ce fait doit devenir, sans aucun doute, un des éléments principaux de toute recherche sur les origines égyptiennes" (Jean-Francois Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, Elibron Classics (an unabridged facsimile of the edition published by Imprimerie Royale in 1828, pp. 455-458). I have underlined what is more useful to the discussion. Please, Wikidudeman, look for a translator.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can read French then translate it for me. If you can't then don't reference it. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You refer often to Egyptology, but you cannot read Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology, in the original French. In the future, I will  be translating his assertions.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You can translate them here, for me on the talk page. Don't translate them for the article or that's Original Research. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt as an African civilisation

message: they prematurelly archived a page again.  Not only that this is twice they have deleted 
my no vandalizing remarks about how white people can get tans, about eye genetics nessicary 
for golden eyes, and about the evolution of nations predesessor and descende nations( egypt 
to greece, greece to rome, rome to the ottoman, all of which have their national ancesstory 
in egypt much like the talamys, cleopatras house) I brought the national thing up after they
deleted my statements about eye gentetics and tans, when they said "We'll let the evidence
speak for itself, thank you very much."  I am sick of you people being artificial mourners 
for a nation that is not really dead and for a people that still play promminent roles in 
recent history A.D..  You all are a bunch of masachists and "viictims" whallowing in a 
surrogate pity and self defeat.  
To whom do I nofity about such inappropriate behavior?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.53 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Well explain what you want to explain here. No one delete or archive this discussion. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   The punks did it again!!!!!!!!!! 

message: Do I have to say any more people.   Come on all the arguements about the south aplly
dirrecttly to the north in the mediteranian. Now I know you all think White people were 
placed here by aliens as a joke after civilization was founded.  So I guess any refference 
to the White and other non'black ethic groups of the mediteranian would be a waste of time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.53 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt as a mediteranian nation.