Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Creation of new article

This article was created as a spin-off from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Wdford (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Preemptively adding this to the talk page:

Opening every point of reversal to debate by the public

There will be no editorial dictatorships on such an important subject. Editors that don't agree with this theory routinely try to write the summary of this theory using only source material that exists to discredit this theory.

• All scholars that support this theory are not Afrocentrists. Bernal is not an Afrocentrist. This is a false and misleading claim that is predictably used by detractors to discredit the theory (in the article's first line) before a reader has even had time to judge the theory on its merits.

• The word melanchroes is ubiquitously translated as black, which is cited in great detail in this article. This is a controversial topic, but it is a fact that melanchroes is routinely translated as black and black skinned. It is also sometimes translated as dark. Snowden uses both in the same book and same sentence. Peer reviewed secondary sources discuss this very important aspect of the black theory.

• There is a written history of the UNESCO conference. We can all read it for ourselves. Mainstream scholars agreed with Diop on some points, but did not accept his theory in its entirety. Some scholars agreed with Diop. It's fair and balanced to mention the points of agreement, as opposed to only mentioning the points of disagreement. Peer reviewed secondary sources discuss this very important aspect of the black theory.

• It is flatly not true that mainstream scholars only see the onset of black people in Egyptian iconography in the New Kingdom. Mainstream scholars, such as Davisse and Nadury, mentioned in the UNESCO proceedings that they saw black people in the Old Kingdom and 11th dynasty. Therefore, mainstream scholars saw blacks in Egyptian art in every major period of dynastic Egypt. This is an undeniable fact. See the General History of Africa. Peer reviewed secondary sources discuss this very important aspect of the black theory.

• Modern visitors and scholars repeatedly mentioned the negroid character of the sphinx, which is an Old Kingdom sculpture. They were not Afrocentrists. They were Europeans. The sphinx argument is featured very prominently in practically every book espousing this theory. The sphinx argument is usually at the very beginning of the book. Entire pages are devoted to quoting Europeans that commented on the negroid character of the sphinx statue. This is a central tenet of this theory and has to be documented in this article. It's as central to the Black theory as the Ancient Greek comments about black skinned Egyptians, or the realization that most mainstream scholarship on this topic has been politically motivated for centuries. Therefore, peer reviewed secondary sources mention the sphinx and it's purported negroid characteristics. A paragraph about that topic is a perfect fit for this article.

• Detractors of this theory frequently mention that Egyptians and Ethiopians must have been racially different because in many paintings the Egyptians are painted as reddish brown and the Nubians/Ethiopians as black. Astoundingly, some editors are trying to silence the voice of the most world renowned Ancient Egyptian scholars on this matter. The well respected Snowden stated that Romans and Greeks knew of red negroes. The world respected scholars at the University of Chicago stated that Nubians are painted from red to black in paintings. Actual Egyptian paintings were provided that show Egyptians and Nubians painted as red in the same painting (from the tomb of the Egyptian Huy and Ramesses II at Beit el wali). Some editors are not following the rules and are trying to prevent any information that disagrees with the POV that they are pushing from being added to the article. If must endure Najovits easily disproven statement that Egyptians are always red and Nubians are always black, shouldn't the easily substantiated other side of the story be presented? Especially, since the other side is backed by Snowden and the University of Chicago scholars. Anyone visiting the Oriental museum can see this, or you can view any of the peer reviewed books about the exhibits in the Oriental museum at the Univ. of Chicago. These Univ. of Chicago scholars spent decades in the Nile valley studying this subject and they are better sources than Wiki editors pushing a false POV that Nubians are always painted black. In summary, it is a fact that Nubians are shown in Egyptian paintings using the exact same red paint as other Nile valley inhabitants (Northern Egyptians). We must all be able to admit when we are wrong. Finally, you and I are both aware that scholars, such as Diop, devote entire chapters to the subject of the famous dark red color, so once again peer reviewed secondary sources discuss this very important aspect of the black theory.

• Rod (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

RodDailey, you are continuing to go in circles. When you get a chance, please take a look at WP:HORSEMEAT.

For the umpteenth time, Diop’s Theory is discredited by mainstream scholarship, not just a few wiki-editors. At UNESCO it was NOT a case of a handful of supporters vs a handful of detractors – of all the delegates only Obenga supported him. Indeed the others did agree with him on some isolated points, BUT NOT ON HIS CONCLUSION. There is NO actual evidence that supports this theory. The DNA says that ancient Egyptians looked like modern Egyptians, who are NOT black and who do not self-identify as black. All the rest is Diop’s wishful thinking.

Melanchroes is NOT “ubiquitously translated as black” – scholars go both ways. Further, it does not mean “of the negro race”, it means “darker than the average Greek”. Herodotus definitively matched the Egyptians with the Colchians, who are Caucasian, and Herodotus distinguished between Egyptians and the “scorched people” (Ethiopians). This is a very important issue to the Diop supporters, and it is controversial to some people, but to mainstream scholarship it is a non-event, hence in Wikipedia it is treated as a discredited fringe theory.

Please leave the translation of Greek words into English to the experts. You are butchering this translation. Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about "of the negroe race." This is your non-sense. It is an undeniable fact that this word is more often translated as black (in this context) than dark. Review my numerous citations that support my facts versus the unsubstantiated counter position. Furthermore, it is your original research that black people never lived in Colchis. Can you prove that Black people never lived there? If all humans are from Africa and it's clear that the vast majority of Africans are black, it seems perfectly conceivable to me that blacks migrated from Africa to Colchis and were later displaced. I see black skinned people all over Earth (polynesians, southern Indians, aboriginals in Asia, etc.) and it isn't that far fetched that Herodotus could have found black people in Colchis at some point. Should we conclude from the appearance of modern North Americans that White people have always dominated the continent?Rod (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between “seeing blacks in Egyptian art”, and “seeing black Egyptians in Egyptian art”. It is well established that a lot of Nubian soldiers were settled in the delta after a successful campaign into Nubia, and I would be happy for you to add that mention, as long as you note that these were foreign immigrants and not “Egyptians”. They certainly contributed thereafter to the gene pool, but not to the point of changing the racial identity of the entire population. Probably the USA will one day reach the point where the majority of the population is black, but when that day comes, it will be inappropriate to claim that the achievements of the USA over the first 300 years were the achievements of a “black civilization”.

I would be happy for you to accept the mainstream scholarship that Nubia and Egypt have been intertwined and one in the same racial, biological, and cultural group from before the dynastic period. You just make yourself seem silly when you keep trying to maintain this ridiculous position that Nubia and Egypt were two foreign lands that were separated by some impassable barrier and didn't share anything of importance. Nubians and Egyptians were both in the great east african substratum, the Saharo-tropical variant. They shared the Nile valley and mixed before, during, and after the dynastic period. For all intents and purposes, their cultures were nearly indistinguishable throughout history.Rod (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A handful of visitors certainly have mentioned the “negroid character” of the damaged face of the Sphinx, but they make up 0.00001% of all visitors and scholars. Once again, mainstream scholarship does not accept that the statue is a portrait of a black person. We therefore already mention that suggestion in the article, but in the correct context.

There are plethora of scholars and visitors that mention the negroid character of the sphinxRod (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the colour of paint in their art is not considered to be representative of real people. This is abundantly clear from the fact that Egyptian men were invariably painted red, but the women were invariably yellow-beige. It is scientifically impossible that every man really was red but every woman really was pale. The statues here [1] of a family (mum, dad, son and daughter) show the two males as red and the two females as yellow, regardless of age. Clearly the colours were thus symbolic rather than realistic. Accordingly, a red paint colour counts for nothing, as is well documented in the article already, and ranting on about it will not advance the article at all. This is indeed a corner-stone of Diop’s discredited theory, and so it must indeed be mentioned, but once again it must be mentioned in context – namely that it has been discredited by mainstream scholarship. Consider also these two tomb paintings – of two women (Kemsit and Ashayt of the 11th Dynasty) who were known to be descended from a Nubian mother – see the clear distinction between their “colour” and that of the Egyptian ladies (and men) in the paintings? [2] and [3].

Cleopatra was not a Greek, she was a tenth-generation Egyptian, of Greek ancestry. She was thus more Egyptian than Tiye, whose father was a foreigner – more likely Asiatic than Nubian, based on his name. Cleopatra was thus more Egyptian than Obama is American. Your favourite cherry-picked statue of Tiye only looks black to you because it was carved of dark wood. If it were carved of alabaster or marble, she would look quite European. The colour of the wood/stone used was not intended to illustrate the race of the person depicted – many people had multiple statues, in both light and dark stone.

Tiye was an Egyptian and I dare you to prove that she was not. Good luck.Rod (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And finally, re Obama etc – I am not American. I am an African – and in Africa, a “multiracial” person is NOT BLACK. “Mixed race” is not considered black, and such people are actively discriminated against by many black people in Africa. I understand that racist white Americans use/d the “one-black-drop-equals-black rule”, but Egypt is in Africa, and I assure you that Africans use the “less-than-100%-black-is-not-black-enough rule”. Diop was a product of his time, where anyone that was not pure white was automatically black, but in the rest of the planet, and in the rest of history, that is not how it works, and we should not write Wikipedia articles on that narrow basis. Petrie etc never claimed that Egyptian civilization had white roots, they accepted that the roots came from Asia, and they had evidence to back it up. Diop never mentions Asia as an option – for him it was always just Black vs White, where even Ramses with his red hair was somehow considered to be black.

Wdford (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The rules of the Egyptian racial debate were established a long time ago. Let's not try to change them now that the rules have become inconvenient.Rod (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It must be really hard to argue against the truth. Just because you make untrue statements does not mean that I will believe them.

• We are in agreement, many scholars at the UNESCO conference agreed with several of Diop's painstakingly researched points. I have never stated that Diop convinced the delegation to sign off on his entire theory. Yet, you and other editors keep pushing a POV that other scholars didn't agree with him on anything, which is very untrue. I also agree that Obenga agreed with him completely.

• Your DNA evidence is nonsense. DNA studies state that the mummies are most closely related to other Africans. http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

• Melanchroes is ubiquitously translated as black. Review my numerous citations and go to the book store. Open Greek books concerning Egyptians and Ethiopians and you will find melanchroes translated as black in almost every instance. You can not convince me that up is down and right is left when every book that I read translates melanchroes as black in the context that we are discussing. Black means exactly what we think it means, black (sun burnt, dark colored, people that would today be classified in the "black" race). Greeks were not blind. Trying to change words from their obvious meaning is not a winning strategy for you in this debate.

• I don't agree with your point at all. My position is that there was one Nile valley "race" and that Nile valley "race" included some variation in the phenotype of its inhabitants. Using modern social constructs, those Nile valley inhabitants (with all their phenotypical variation) would get classified as black by most societies. Some would be darker, like Wesley Snipes (since we're using the USA as an example) and some would be fairer skinned like (Beyonce or Halle Berry), all of whom are Black using today's understanding. Your examples are not working. The USA will NEVER be a majority black country as the birth rate of Blacks is not sufficient to overcome the fact that there are 200 million whites and only 35 million blacks in the country. Furthermore, the birth rate of Latinos far exceeds Blacks in the USA and thus it is more likely to become majority Latino than Black or White. Finally, there would not be a USA without Blacks. Your statement shows your hand and confirms your POV. The Southern economy of the USA could not have existed without the labor of Blacks. USA cotton would have never competed effectively in global markets without the unfair advantage afforded by free, black labor. Whites and Native Americans could not successfully raise cash crops in the Southern USA's climate, or in the presence of Europeans (as Native Americans died en masse from European diseases). Blacks fought in all of the USA's wars, which led to the USA being the country it is today. Blacks helped the USA to achieve manifest destiny, as the Buffalo Soldiers led the charge to secure the Western part of the continent. Blacks were arguably the best fighter pilots in WWII. Blacks were present during some of America's most enduring achievements. For example, Lewis Latimer helped Bell to invent and draft the drawings for the telephone and improved upon Edison's design for the light bulb. A Black man surveyed/planned the city of Washington D.C. (the USA's national capitol) and blacks built D.C.'s greatest monuments, such as the White House. So, yes blacks are responsible for America's achievements throughout its history. Let's agree to stop with the USA analogies, as they distract us from Ancient Egypt.

I don't speak for others, but personally, I acknowledge that blacks made great contributions to the US (and other countries). I also acknowledge that many people of black origin (Nubians) made contributions to Ancient Egypt. But neither the US nor Ancient Egypt could be called a "black civilization". --Yalens (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You say discussing things like this distracts from the issue- but you were the one who brought it up, and that tells me something. The "one-drop rule" simply doesn't apply to other countries- and it doesn't to wikipedia either, which is supposed to have a global, not American, point of view.--Yalens (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wdford brought up the USA (just above my post). Read the page. Unlike Ancient Egypt, the USA is not one racial group that built a civilization. The Nile valley saharo-tropical variant (or great east african sub-stratum) was one biological group, or racial group and it built and sustained the Ancient Egyptian civilization.

Most Egyptologists are from majority white, Western countries. Therefore, the one drop rule (and especially the 1/3 rule, as most mainstream scholars admit that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was at least 1/3 Negroid) would apply. Diop is not from one of the aforementioned countries, but he was trained in France, and so he logically concluded that 1/3 black plus 1/3 dark brown/red = black.Rod (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mainstream scholars can't refute that the Sphinx is a statue of a black person (as it is impossible to definitively prove the race of a statue) and arguments to the contrary fall flat. Mainstream scholarship has been overtly racist for about 200 years and just stating that mainstream scholarship thinks this or that is NOT a demonstration or a proof. It's an unsubstantiated claim that is rather unimpressive. Most reasonable people associate prognathism with blacks and the sphinx certainly has it. Because racist mainstream scholars make statements that stand in stark contrast to the decades of experience that we have with the racial social construct, is not a reason for many of us to ignore the obvious.

• It's quite clear that the Egyptians could distinguish between whites, Asiatics, and Africans in their paintings. The color was not symbolic. They were showing that they are much darker than whites and asiatics. They were showing that they were the same color as Nubians, who were also often painted as red in Egyptian art. Why didn't we ever see the white type painted in the symbolic red/brown or black?

• Cleopatra was a Greek, just as you said in your statement. She wasn't descended from the Nile valley group. You and your mainstream scholarship can NOT prove that Tiye was from anywhere but the Nile valley. Save this nonsense for an uneducated person that might believe you. She was likely from Upper Egypt, or lower Nubia, like half of the population of the Nile valley. Her bust looks like a black person because it looks like a black person. That's the great thing about having eyesight. You collect empirical data by observing black people throughout your life and when you see a new black person, you associate them with the other hundreds of thousands of black people that you have seen in your life. Even if the black person is albino or has a skin disease and has lost their pigmentation, I can still identify them as black. It's called good eyesight and common sense. It doesn't take a ph.D. Tiye's bust would look like a black person if it were painted blue, purple, white, green, or orange because she has a black person's facial features. White people don't look like the bust of Tiye. I am not blind.

• The controversy has been primarily between the sloppy scholarship of authors claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were white (or some impossible to decipher offshoot of white, such as Mediterranean/brown/hamitic/Nilotic) and the more recent scholarship of those demonstrating that the Ancient Egyptians fit most closely into the Saharo-tropical variant that most reasonable people conflate with the former black racial category.Rod (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum but you are treating it as one. Please - you and anyone else using this page to argue a position, stop it. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am using this talk page to ask for public input on my cited additions to this article, which are constantly being deleted by editors pushing a POV that is contrary to this article.Rod (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are, and in a way that makes it unlikely it will be read. If you have a specific issue about a deletion, start a section on it. And your statement above suggests that you don't understand WP:NPOV (as did you use of "It should be noted" which we avoid). This article is not meant to have a pov, it is meant to discuss a hypothesis. I've changed your indents - did you actually mean to indent so many spaces? Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the title of the section that I created. It is to open debate on every point that was deleted. It is exceedingly curious that in your uneven and biased attempts at moderation, you never admonish Yalens, wdford, and others on their rants. Fairness is a virtue.Rod (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Indigenous and Black African model

I missed this, partially because I hate editing these pages because of the unpleasantness of some of the editors. But having noticed it, it's ridiculous and simply wrong as well as pov pushing. This is not one model, it's two models. That's obvious and shouldn't need comment. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Diop and many other supporters simultaneously refuted the sloppy scholarship of often racist Egyptologists on the racial point and the geographic place of origin. Before Diop and others refuted their inaccurate position, other scholars were claiming that Egyptians were white and not from Africa. Diop said they were black and indigenous in the same peer reviewed secondary work. There were chapters on race and chapters on place of origin. It's the same coherent theory.Rod (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So if they aren't black (whatever that means), they can't be indigenous? That's wrong. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Black means Saharo-tropical variant and great east african substratum and various other phrases that refer to the obvious (dark/black/brown/red skinned people that have lived in Africa since the beginning of time). You are missing the point. Diop and others were simultaneously refuting two different positions that were held by previous scholars: 1) Egyptians were white/asiatic and 2) The Egyptian civilization came from outside of Africa. It was equally important to refute both falsehoods. They could have been Berbers/Indigenous (only refuting one half of the previous scholarship), but the evidence isn't leading us to that conclusion. The evidence is leading us to the conclusion that they were Great East African substratum/Indigenous, which would be called Black by the Western world today.21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alas, Rod inserted the line again. I reverted it. It doesn't even "differ from all the other theories" on that point.--Yalens (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It differs from the majority of previous theories on that point and it's relevant.Rod (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic theory

The article has a stub section, "Language", which effectively argues that Egyptian language should be reclassified to a different language family. From the Afroasiatic languages to the Niger–Congo languages. The article should probably reference the linguistic arguments involved. Currently the section makes it sound as an ideological dispute instead of a difference in classification methods. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Najovits

These statements by Najovits that Herodotus made ethnic distinctions between the Egyptians and Ethiopians are patently untrue. Herodotus in fact describes the Egyptians and Ethiopians as having the same phenotype throughout his book. He mentions that both the Egyptians and Ethiopians have black skins and woolly/kinky hair. That would suggest the same race, if anything. We cannot allow easily disproven statements to remain in this article just because Najovits said them. Najovits is starting to sound like a very unreliable source with very bad interpretations of easy to understand passages in Herodotus' work, the Histories.Rod (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, Herodotus explicitly said that Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Colchians were of the same race because of their appearance and cultural practices (e.g. circumcision).

"It is...manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptians by race...descended from Sesostris...they have black skins and kinky hair...second...more reliably...the Egyptians and Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial...Macrons learned...from Colchidians. These are the only races which practice circumcision."

I won't bother quoting the numerous sections of the book where Herodotus describes the Ethiopians as black skinned. This should be a given.Rod (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing material on the basis the editor can disprove it

We do not remove material simply because we think it's wrong. That's against our policy at WP:VERIFY. The only reasons to delete sourced material are that they misrepresent the source, that the source isn't a reliable source by our criteria, or WP:UNDUE (I might have missed one). Not only that, but the edit summary "This statement is easily disproven. Herodotus called both Egyptians and Ethiopians black skinned throughout his work, which certainly is not making an ethnic distinction between them." shows another misunderstanding of our policies. We should not be using our interpretations of sources to make an argument. If Simson Najovits is a reliable source we leave him in and find another reliable source disputing him. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Najovits is misrepresenting the source by stating that Herodotus said something when in fact Herodotus said the exact opposite. This is abundantly clear. This has nothing to do with me thinking it's wrong. If it's unencyclopedic for a wiki editor to misrepresent a source, clearly it's unencyclopedic to quote an author that is blatantly misrepresenting a primary source. I could agree with the "national distinction" portion, but Herodotus contradicts Najovits on the ethnic part.Rod (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If Najovits says Herodotus wrote a specific sentence, then you need to find another source that says Herodotus did not write that sentence. You can’t make that judgement for yourself - to do so would be WP:OR. It matters not that Herodotus may have contradicted himself - Herodotus contradicted lots of people, including modern evidence about Egypt. For example:

1. Herodotus "wrote" that King Khufu was buried in a deep shaft, on an island surrounded by water, but modern Egyptology insists Khufu was buried high up in the Great Pyramid;
2. Herodotus "wrote" that the Pyramids of Giza were built by slaves, but modern Egyptology insists instead that the pyramids were built by paid workers;
3. Herodotus seems to have never noticed the Sphinx at all, although there is no way he could have missed noticing it if he really had visited Giza as he claimed;
4. Herodotus excluded the Jews from his list of the peoples who practice circumcision, even though Herodotus would have been very familiar with Jewish people and their customs if he really had traveled as he claimed;
5. Herodotus “wrote” that Sesostris campaigned in Europe and defeated various European armies, even though he is known to have done no such thing, and even though it is known that NO EGYPTAIN KING EVER did any such thing. The underlying story is not plausible at all. No Egyptian army ever ventured as far as the Black Sea, and no evidence has ever been found of any such campaign - neither in Egyptian records nor in the mentioned conquered lands. This story is utterly unbelievable, and is added to the long list of things about which Herodotus was “inaccurate”.

Herodotus was not a scholar, he was a tourist with a flair for writing interesting tales and a lesser flair for factual accuracy. His claims re the Colchians are thus dismissed by mainstream scholarship, and Diop and his followers are left grasping.

Strabo follows Herodotus re the Colchians, and Strabo seems here to be saying that Egypt colonized Ethiopia, while Keita (and Diop) claim the migration went in the other direction. Seems Strabo is no more reliable than Herodotus. Herodotus certainly said it, and Diop then quoted it selectively to suit his POV, but mainstream scholarship doesn’t regard Herodotus as being reliable, anymore than mainstream scholarship relies on the accounts of that other "ancient great" Plato regarding Atlantis.

Finally, we cannot “clearly” conclude from the Bible that Jews learned circumcision from Ethiopians and Egyptians – the Bible says at Genesis 17 that God commanded Abraham to institute the practice of circumcision, not any Egyptian. For the umpteenth time, we find Rod quoting sources selectively and misleadingly.

Wdford (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this is not a forum, it would not be difficult to post walls of texts where modern, mainstream Egyptologists got masses of facts wrong during the last 200 years. See my Sayce post, as an example.Rod (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is a waste of everyone's time. You are not able to admit basic facts of history when they don't support your view. The Jews did not enter into historical records before the time that Ethiopians and Egyptians were already reported as practicing circumcision. Herodotus mentioned the entire Levant in his circumcision argument. Herodotus is known as the Father of History for a reason. Because Herodotus and Strabo don't agree with a Wiki editor's POV, we are supposed to dismiss two of the greatest historians (from the nation that gave us the "Greek miracle" nonetheless) in the history of mankind. We are not buying it. I am not buying it. I could write walls of text on the talk page supporting the veracity of Herodotus and Strabo, but there is no point. Their work speaks for itself and has been backed up by modern research in many areas. There is a reason that people are still reading and talking about their work today. They did well for their time and are certainly more trustworthy than the racist and sloppy scholars of recent history (see my digression on Sayce as an example). Let's see if the works of these bums (not you, your sources) that are trying to discredit Herodotus and Strabo will still be popular 2000 years from now.

You keep coming back to the colonization point. It only makes my case. Throughout history, scholars cannot distinguish between Ethiopians and Egyptians. The Strabo versus Herodotus colonization argument is eerily reminiscent of the Bruce Williams vs others debate concerning the A-group and Naqada cultures. At the end of the day, Egyptians and Nubians were so closely related (great east african sub-stratum, saharo-tropical variant) that scholars throughout history could not tell which was the oldest and which was the colony (which means they were essentially the same). Somehow, the scholars always reach the same conclusion, that they were deeply intertwined. In today's term this would mean the same race and same culture.Rod (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Colchians

"Herodotus also noted a marked similarity between the Egyptians and the Colchians – in modern Georgia, where the people are Caucasian and some of whom are dark-skinned."

Following the logic of this quote, White people must have always dominated the North American continent because if you come to North America today, it is mostly populated by caucasians. This quote is absurd on its face. Herodotus traveled there and told us that he saw black skinned people (more than 2000 years ago). It is completely irrelevant who lives there today. That does not change Herodotus' account. White people live in South Africa today. That doesn't mean that this was always the case. It doesn't have to fit your POV. Herodotus was not a blind man and we have plenty of evidence that Greeks knew of black skinned people, so he would not mistake a black skinned person for a white person.Rod (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've honestly never heard anyone (except maybe some ridiculous Abkhazian nationalists) ever question that Colchis is regarded as an Ancient Georgian kingdom... it's inhabitants were ethnic Georgians who spoke Kartvelian languages and so on. There is utterly no evidence anywhere that "black people" (whatever that is) once lived in Caucasian Georgia. And by the way, the "dark-skinned" adjective only applies to "some" Georgians if you compare them to Russians, who are very light- even these darker Georgians are relatively light when considering the world's huge range of skin tone. --Yalens (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously implying that you have reason to believe blacks once lived in Georgia, leaving no trace in Georgia's millenia of recorded history?--Yalens (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Remembering our earlier conversation about civility, let's discuss what Herodotus and Strabo said. This is not about me. I am just telling you what Herodotus and Strabo said (which was later restated by Diop and others).

Herodotus said: "It is...manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptians by race...descended from Sesostris...they have black skins and kinky hair...second...more reliably...the Egyptians and Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial...Macrons learned...from Colchidians. These are the only races which practice circumcision."

Strabo concurred that the Egyptians and Colchoi are of the same race, but holds that the migrations to Colchoi and Ethiopia had been from Egypt only. "Egyptians settled in Ethiopia and in Colchoi."

This is what the father of history and Strabo said about this subject. I am more inclined to believe them than some recent scholars that are likely pushing a political agenda. So, as far fetched as it may sound to you, two GREATS of history (Herodotus/Strabo) had reason to believe that there were black skinned people living in Colchis. Maybe they got displaced?Rod (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Herodotus believed they were the same "race", though the word obviously didn't mean the same thing to him as it does to you, because the "race" that you know of didn't exist in Ancient times. I can guarantee you that Colchis' inhabitants were peoples of the Caucasus (and by that I mean Georgians and their neighbors/relatives, not the race). You're completely entitled to your opinion, but I'd recommend not saying that Colchians were black- it just sounds ridiculous to anyone who is familiar with the region, about on the same level as the claim about the Olmecs. I don't claim to be a recognized Caucasus expert or anything like that, but I know far more about the region than 99.99% of Americans who can believe any ridiculous thing about its obscure lands. --Yalens (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you like me to invite a Georgia-specializing editor to this discussion? --Yalens (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I must apologize. I have let us get off-topic again- it's getting hard to stop this from happening, actually. Let us end this. What matters is which scholar says what, not what we think. --Yalens (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, for once, this is on topic. It was while drawing a comparison between Egyptians and Colchians that Herodotus made his famous/infamous statement that both of the groups were black skinned with kinky hair. Again, these are not my words. These are the words of Herodotus (and later Strabo), so they can make Herodotus and Strabo sound silly (to people sharing your POV), but not me.Rod (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is considered to be "on-topic", may I add two more observations?

First, Rod says he is more inclined to trust Strabo than the modern scholars who disagree with Rod. Strabo seems here to be saying that Egypt colonized Ethiopia, while Rod's favorite modern scholar Keita claims the migration went in the other direction. Strange.

I have NEVER quoted Keita and I have NEVER read any of his/her books. I don't even know who Keita is. Maybe you are thinking about Asante90. Being completely wrong on a simple point is a really bad way to start your argument.Rod (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Second, on the subject of trusting Herodotus. Herodotus "wrote" that King Khufu was buried in a deep shaft, on an island surrounded by water, but modern Egyptology insists Khufu was buried high up in the Great Pyramid. Herodotus "wrote" that the Pyramids of Giza were built by slaves, which modern Egyptology rejects with near-hysteria. Herodotus seems to have never noticed the Sphinx at all, although it is prominent, unique, and the head can never be sanded over because it stands so high above an otherwise-flat surface. And Herodotus says in Rod's quote that "more reliably...the Egyptians and Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial... these are the only races which practice circumcision." Obviously that is nonsense - all the descendents of Abraham have always practiced circumcision, including the Jews and the Arabs/Canaanites/Midianites etc, with whom Herodotus should have been well acquainted (assuming he can be trusted, of course). On this basis it is more likely that the Egyptian culture was shared with West Asians than with anybody else, but nobody has (yet) claimed that all the Jews and Arabs and Palestinians etc are also black - have they? It is broadly acknowledged that the writings of Herodotus are not always to be trusted, which is why the desperate clutching at this straw by Diop and his followers is so inexplicable, and why most modern scholars just ignore this "debate" completely. If the circumcision "evidence" is a "more reliable" indicator even than their skin and hair, then it seems Herodotus is clearly not very reliable at all.

Wdford (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In your second point, you have the audacity to compare Old Kingdom Egyptians (27th century B.C.) with Abraham's descendants, although Abraham could not have possibly lived before the 20th century BC (and realistically could not have existed before the 13th century BC, as he was from Ur of the Chaldeans and that terminology didn't exist until the 12th century). Therefore, the Egyptian and Ethiopian circumcision culture had already existed for more than 1000 years before the Hebrew slaves learned it from them during captivity (or cultural diffusion to the less advanced cultures of Khor). The Greek authors mentioned that people in the Levant practiced circumcision. They also mentioned that the people of the Levant learned it from the Ethiopians and Egyptians (which can be easily substantiated by the incessant references to Hebrews sojourning/hiding/marrying/being captive in Egypt throughout the bible). I am truly surprised at your lack of knowledge of these basic concepts in Ancient Egyptian history. In conclusion, it is exceedingly foolish to posit that the Ancient Egyptians learned their culture from Hebrews/Jews, as Hebrews/Jews did not exist as a people until the Egyptian civilization and culture was already thousand(s) of years old. Egyptians/Ethiopians invented circumcision.

Steady on Rod. Nowhere did I say the Egyptians learned circumcision from the Jews - this is a classic attempt by you to divert the discussion away from a point that embarrasses your argument. My very clear point was that Herodotus "wrote" that the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Colchians were the only races which practice circumcision. Herodotus was clearly wrong in that statement, as by his day there were Jews and Canaanites in that area who also practiced circumcision. Who learned from who is irrelevant, although neither Jewish nor Islamic scriptures credit this to the Egyptians or the Ethiopians. My point - which you have neatly avoided - is that Herodotus was wrong on that statement, as with other statements relating to Egypt, and thus we should be cautious about swallowing whole everything which Herodotus apparently "wrote" on that subject. Please see also the wiki article on Sesostris for a detailed discussion of how much nonsense this further Herodotian "record" actually is. Herodotus was not a scholar - by today's standards of scholarship Herodotus was little more than a blogging tourist, who wrote much but did not necessarily check the sources first. Wdford (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I promise to be nice. Herodotus said on page 134 of the Histories (Penguin version), that Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians practiced circumcision. In the very next sentence, Herodotus said that "Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves admit that they learned the practice from Egypt." That covers Khor/Levant, which successfully refutes your argument and attempt at discrediting Herodotus. He was quite the scholar for his day and more reliable than racist scholars (not you) of the 18th and 19th centuries, as they published all manner of foolishness.

Half of the bible is Jewish scripture (and the 2nd half rebel Jewish scripture) and there could not possibly be more references to Ethiopia and Egypt in the bible. Abraham "sojourned in Egypt" (Genesis 12) and then fathered Ishmael by an Egyptian woman, Hagar (Genesis 16). Ishmael is the ancestor of Islam. Clearly, Hagar, an Egyptian, would have believed in circumcision. Predictably, in the next chapter circumcision is mentioned for the first time in Jewish history (Genesis 17). Do you think that Abraham's time in Egypt and Egyptian mistress had anything to do with this? Joseph was trained by the pharaoh and Joseph married an Egyptian woman, Asenath, daughter of the priest of On. (Genesis 41) Moses was trained in the Egyptian court and married an Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12). During Moses' Egyptian upbringing, are you seriously proposing that the Egyptians would not have circumcised him? Is it more likely or less likely that the Egyptian trained Moses would have convinced his people to start circumcising their young? Additional connections between Egypt/Ethiopia and the Jews. The baby Jesus was hid in Egypt. Hezekiah entreated the Ethiopian/Sudanese/Egyptian 25th dynasty pharaohs to protect him from Assyria (Sennacherib). Solomon took the pharaoh's daughter to wife (among a lot of other women). Ethiopians and Egyptians conquered Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 12). Literally, the bible reads like the history of Ethiopia and Egypt, as much as the Levant and clearly we can conclude from the bible that Jews learned circumcision from Ethiopians and Egyptians, just like the Greeks said they did.Rod (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving on to Sesotris, an Egyptian (see how this is on topic). Herodotus (The Histories, pages 133-135), said "Sesotris sailed with an army from the Arabian gulf and subdued the coastal tribes as he went...he marched across the continent and subdued everyone as he went...victorious progress continued...entered Europe...defeated Scythians and Thracians...detached a body of troops...left them behind to settle...Colchians have black skin and woolly hair (page 134, Penguin edition)...circumcision...The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves admit that they learned the practice from Egypt." If you all don't have this basic information about history, it will be difficult for us to have an intelligent discussion about Egyptology. I am concerned that the article will deteriorate if editors are so ill prepared to add meaningful content. Yes, I believe this story more than some racist modern scholars (see my example about Sayce for rationale). It seems perfectly plausible that one of the strongest and most advanced civilizations that the world has even known could have subdued Colchis before the time of Herodotus and left settlers there.Rod (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see also the wiki article on Sesostris for a detailed discussion of how much nonsense this further Herodotian "record" actually is. I am concerned that the article will deteriorate if editors are so ill prepared to add meaningful content. It seems perfectly implausible that Egypt could have invaded Europe and left zero trace of their presence there.Wdford (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@Wdford: Actually, while there is no claim that the modern Jews are black, there are some Afrocentrists who think the Ancient Israelites were... in addition to, of course, Vikings, Olmecs and apparently Ancient Georgians... in light of all this, perhaps we should have a discussion about the verity of some of these quotes...

So saying that blacks lived in Colchis only sounds ridiculous to "people sharing my POV". Actually, why don't we test this? Rod, why don't you go to the Colchis page and make a section about how Colchians are black, just as an experiment. Then we can see what sort of response the editors give. Who knows? Maybe they'll agree with you, but let's see for sure, shall we? --Yalens (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not an Afrocentrist. Contact an Afrocentrist to follow up on your previous statement. I am only concerned with the truth.Rod (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

if you are concerned about the truth, please see also the wiki article on Sesostris for a detailed discussion of how unreliable this Herodotian "record" actually is. Wdford (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm yes. And if the Colchians were descended from the Egyptians, then their language should be an Egyptian derivative. Is it? Or is it vastly different? Does anybody perhaps know? Wdford (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The ancients said that there was an Egyptian colony of Sesotris in Colchis. The Ancients didn't state that this colony held the area for all of history (just leading up to Herodotus' visit).Rod (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see also the wiki article on Sesostris for a detailed discussion of how much nonsense this Herodotian "record" actually is. Wdford (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We can all agree that the Sesotris story is problematic and probably and amalgamation of many pharaohs. The underlying story is completely plausible. An imperialistic Egypt conquered nearby areas and left settlers. We all know that Ethiopians were a major contingent of the Egyptian army, so this story is believable (even if you don't believe that the Egyptians looked like Ethiopians). I'm not saying that these settlers would have overwhelmed the conquered areas for all of human history.Rod (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I do. The Colchians' exact ethno-linguistic identity is debated between Abkhaz and Georgian nationalists (and their sympathizers), the former claiming they were of the Northwest Caucasian language family (which notably includes Abkhaz and Circassian), while the latter claims they spoke Kartvelian languages, which include the Georgian language and its relatives. A third theory has also emerged, mainly promoted by people of a more neutral opinion as well as other Caucasians (I mean of the mountains, not the race) plus perhaps some dovish Abkhaz/Georgians that Colchis was diverse, including speakers of languages from both families. More importantly though, neither language family bears any close relation to Egyptian, or its Afro-Asiatic relatives.

In fact, the Caucasus is known in Classical Arabic as the "mountains of tongues", because of its linguistic diversity. Many of its languages, including those of both Abkhaz and Georgian, are thought to lack any close relations to languages outside the Caucasus. Scholars believe that the reason why such linguistic diversity survived there is because of how hard it is to invade and hold on to. Indeed, the proud sons of the Caucasus, despite their small numbers, have greatly frustrated the armies of a number of much more powerful foes, notably including the Persians (many times), the Arabs, the Mongols, and of course the Russians. The Ancient Egyptians, however, are not included in this list. --Yalens (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a flaw in your logic. You state that the sons of the Caucasus fought the Persians many times, but not the A.E. How soon we forget that the Persians employed Egyptians and Ethiopians in their army, which means that it is likely that the A.E. and Ethiopians fought on behalf of the Persians in the Caucasus. An inconvenient truth. Getting back on topic, I don't think anyone has presented conclusive evidence that it would have been impossible for an Egyptian pharaoh to place settlers in Colchis.Rod (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources?

Can we please not use this page as a forum, but bring sources? Eg [4] - p 82 from Black Athena Revisited, Bernal's reply[5], and Armayor, "Did Herodotus Ever Go to the Black Sea?" 57-62. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

On the reliability of Herodotus

Please see [6], which I have just finished researching. I propose to add a summary of this material into this article. Wdford (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this seems fairly relevant to the discussion. Go ahead. Perhaps we should have a section just for Herodotus, perhaps located within a "Greek Historians" section... --Yalens (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Diop, Bernal, and others make a convincing case for the reliability of Herodotus. It seems that the veracity of his accounts only became an issue after the onset of the racist scholarship of the last couple of centuries.Rod (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and the fact is that many scholars have noted the affinities of North East Africans, including the ancient Egyptians to people of the Indian sub continent and many European scholars of the 19th to 20th century referred to Herodotus as well. These were used to reinforce their own FIRST HAND observations. Hence, those who object to Herodotus are simply proposing a biased POV which has no basis in historical fact as Herodotus is often cited as a reliable eye witness to the ancient world. And since some folks want to talk about this subject as being about race, then lets refer to the "father" of race in an anthropological sense:

It appears to me that we must adopt at least three principal varieties in the national physiognomy of the ancient Egyptians; which, like all the varieties in the human species, are no doubt often blended together, so as to produce various

shades, but from which the true if I may so call it, ideal archetype may however be distinguished, by unequivocal pro- perties, to which the endless smaller deviations in individuals may, without any forced construction, be ultimately reduced.
These appear to me to be, 1. the Ethiopian cast; 2. the one approaching to the Hindoo; and, 3. the mixed partaking in a manner of both the former.
The first is chiefly distinguished by the prominent maxillae turgid lips, broad flat nose, and protruding eye-balls, such as Volney finds the Copts at present;* such, according to his description, and the best figures given by Norden, is the countenance of the Sphinx; such were, according to the well-known passage in Herodotus on the origan of the Golchians even the Egyptians of his time ; and thus hath Lucian likewise represented a young Egyptian at Rome. ( See Tab. XV 1. fig, 1. )
The second, or the Hindoo cast, differs toto ccelo from the above, as we may convince ourselves by the inspection of other Egyptian monuments. It is characterized by a long slender nose, long and thin eyelids, which run upwards from the top a short and very thin bodily structure,* and very long shanks. As an ideal of this form, I shall only adduce the painted female figure upon theback of the sarcophagus of Capt.Lethieullier's mummy in the British Museum, which has been engraved by Vertue, and which most strikingly agrees with the unequi- vocal national form of the Hindoos, which, especially in England, is so often to be seen upon Indian paintings.
...
Adopting, as I think it conformable to nature, five races of the human species, viz. 1. the Caucasian ; 2. the Mongolian; 3. the Malay; 4. the Ethiopian ; 5. the American ; I think the Egyptians will find their place between the Caucasian and

the Ethiopian, but that they differ from none more than from the Mongolian, to which the Chinese belong.

— John Frederick Blumenbach, Observations On Some Egyptian Mummies Opened in London, http://archive.org/details/philtrans05951465

Big-dynamo (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I just read an entire book by A.H.L. Heeren and he quotes Herodotus on nearly every page. He then goes on to demonstrate the high level of agreement between Herodotus, other ancient historians, and modern archaeologists.Rod (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rod, if the book is Manual of Ancient History[7] by Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren, I'm very concerned about your comment. You are saying that a book written in 1833 demonstrates a high level of agreement with modern archaeologists? Exactly how is that possible? Seriously, if this was the impression the book left you with, I'm concerned about all your edits. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, looking at your edits, it's probably his 1838 book[8]. But the same point applies. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to the rampant scholarship by free web preview, I actually own and read the entire Heeren book and I stand by any of my edits. It's quite amusing that we suddenly abhor quotes from the 19th century when most quotes in the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article are from the 19th century. Just reread the sections of debunked theories and count how many quotations there are from the 19th century (It would be a wall of text if I named them all). Do I detect a double standard and some hypocrisy? Is it only okay to quote the views of 19th century scholars if they are trying to make the outlandish claim that Ancient Egyptians are not Africans. What about their 19th century peers that disagreed?Rod (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern archaeology didn't even exist when he wrote his book. Such edits mislead our readers. And is it surprising that an article on the history of a controversy - the Ancient Race Controversy article - has a lot of 19th century sources? Let's not get these articles confused please. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We got confused. This discussion belongs on the Race Controversy page, as these topics are not discussed in this article.Rod (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On second look the pro/con Herodotus info has been added to both articles, so it's relevant on both Talk pages. The following authors cite Herodotus extensively in their works on the Nile Valley (author/book):

• AHL Heeren, Historical researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the...Ethiopians and Egyptians (cited Herodotus on nearly every page and specifically wrote passages to DEMONSTRATE the reliability of Herodotus' accounts of the Nile Valley)Rod (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Henry T. Aubin, The Rescue of Jerusalem (cited Herodotus extensively in this book about the Nile Valley and Levant)Rod (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Basil Davidson, The African Past
• Basil Davidson, The Lost Cities of Africa
• Ivan Van Sertima, Egypt Revisited
• Richard Poe, Black Spark White Fire (literally throughout the entire book)
• Derek Welsby, The Kingdom of Kush
• Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism
• Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization (throughout the entire book with pages devoted to defending Herodotus' reliability)
• Cheikh Anta Diop, Precolonical Black Africa
• Theodore Celenko, Egypt in Africa
• Constantin de Volney, Voyages en Syrie et en Egypte
• Pierre Montet, Sciences et Avenir
• G. Mokhtar, General History of Africa
• Martin Bernal, Black Athena (throughout the entire book)
• John G. Jackson, African Civilizations
• W.E.B. DuBois, The World and Africa
• Strabo, Geography (see the index in the last volume for the numerous references to Herodotus' work)

As you can see, NUMEROUS scholars chose to reference and often heavily cite Herodotus when writing books on the Nile Valley. These scholars span all time periods and prove that Herodotus earned his title, "Father of History", in the eyes of many. I'm sure there are those that believe that Herodotus' work is unreliable, but surely they are not in greater number than those that believe that his work is reliable. Otherwise, why would they use him as such a major source in their books?

Major source? I count 3 mentions by Welsby in his book, did I miss some? Is it surprising that Diop, etc want to use him - mainly uncritically? How do we know that Heeren would use him so much now if he came back from the dead and read more current literature on him? What exactly is your point anyway? None of the above makes Herodotus reliable on everything. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Welsby said that "archaeology graphically confirms some of Herodotus' observations." Rod (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Doug, it is your POV (and the authors cited that agree with you) that Herodotus in unreliable. My point (based on common sense) is that all of the authors listed above would not continually cite Herodotus in their books on the Nile valley if they didn't think he was a good primary source on the topic. That would subject these authors to unnecessary criticism of their works. You cannot deny that NUMEROUS authors seek out Herodotus' work when writing about Ancient Egyptians. It's not a coincidence that so many authors choose to cite him. He is cited so often because people think that his work is reliable and worth citing. Many of these authors explicitly come to the defense of Herodotus and provided modern day examples of how Herodotus' work was corroborated more than 2000 years later. It's an unfair and unreasonable expectation that Herodotus would get every single point correct in his massive work. Did all of the 19th century authors cited by the Hamitic/Asiatic/Dynastic/etc. theories get all of the points right in their books? I think not.

He was reliable on the location of Meroe, was he not?

I did not add any extra commentary about Welsby's use of Herodotus. It is a fact and true statement that he cited Herodotus in his book. I own the book. Shall I quote from it?

Answer this simple question: Why is Herodotus cited so frequently if his work is so untrustworthy, unscholarly, and unreliable? Wouldn't that make the work of all of the authors that I mentioned untrustworthy, unscholarly, and unreliable, as well?Rod (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

cfork

This entire topic is fuelled by one thing, and one thing only: crypto-racist ideas popular in Afrocentrism. Yes, there can be an article on this, as in one article. But clearly after years, it hasn't been possible to impress the basic principles of Wikipedia on the editors infatuated with this topic.

What we must absolutely insist on is that this interminable madness does not spill over to other pages, and that people do not get away with creating "walled gardens" of articles about the same thing. This is a clear WP:CFORK of the main article, and basically should be redirected back there without further ado.

The only thing that kept me from doing the obvious edit myself is my long-standing experience that any attempt to bring some reason to this poisoned well results in ad hominem attacks, essentially calling anyone a racist who dares to insist on some minimal encyclopedic standards. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:CFORK, a content fork is only undesirable if it creates "redundant or conflicting articles". A spin-off article is "acceptable, and often encouraged". This is a spin-off article, per WP:SPINOFF, which was created in part because the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article was growing past the 100,000 byte limit. Today the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article stands at about 71k and this article at 50k, so a merger would result in a very large article. It would also create a great deal of WP:UNDUE at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, by swamping out the alternative points of view which are themselves largely summaries of main articles. Third, there is a tendency by certain authors to load their POV into many other articles, so having one article for this material made a lot of sense in cleaning up the other articles that were suffering - an outcome I would have thought you would appreciate. This article is not one-sided nor conflicting with anything - a number of editors are active here to ensure that all the related articles are kept balanced and neutral. The only further improvement that is required is to further summarize the summary in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, which is still IMO a bit content-heavy. If there is a policy on how big should be the residual summary in the main article, that information wold be most helpful. Wdford (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dab if you continue to persist in slandering African scholars are racist and ignore the complete history of European racism in all aspects of endeavor for the last 500 years I will have to go through the effort of having you banned from this article. There is no history of African scholars EVER promoting race or racism as part of a doctrine of black supremacy any where in history. The fact remains that the ONLY people to historically promote, teach and maintain doctrines of race are white European people. It is the basis of most of their strides towards civilization in the last 500 years. Failure to admit that fact and the fact that most white European scholarship in the areas of anthropology and archaeology from the 18th, 19th and early 20th century are BLATANTLY racist constitutes a POV that can not and should not be tolerated. It is offensive and simply goes beyond any simple disagreement over facts. To try and pretend that Africans calling ancient or modern Africans IN AFRICA black is so far fetched as to warrant an article treating that idea as a "HYPOTHESIS" is blatant absurd POV pushing on the part of those who have an agenda. The FACT that Africa is the home of and populated PRIMARILY by black Africans is not a hypothesis and to even suggest it is simply sounds DUMB and this entire article is therefore biased POV nonsense as Egypt is IN AFRICA.Big-dynamo (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm down for deleting this article. We don't have UFO theory of the pyramids, do we now? Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do NOT support deleting the article, as it successfully combats hundreds of years of distortions and sloppy scholarship, as in the Sayce example below.Rod (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dab, This entire topic is fueled by sloppy and racist Eurocentric scholarship from the last couple hundred years. Here's an example:

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Archibald Henry Sayce was a foremost scholar from Britain. He was a cleric and holder of the chair in Assyriology at Oxford. His credentials are impeccable and he studied and traveled extensively in Egypt and Nubia (he spent 17 winters in the Nile valley). He was described as "a genius that could write prose in 20 or more ancient and modern languages." For all of his admirable qualities, you will see that he was completely incapable of consistently telling the truth about the race of people in the Nile valley. In fact, the subject of the race of Nile valley inhabitants turned this genius and mainstream scholar into a pathological liar.

• Sayce said that the greater the projection of the jaws from the line of the face, the more animal like is the face. He then concludes that because the jaw of Negroes often protrudes from the line of the face that they are not far above monkeys and certainly much lower than Europeans. Following his logic to its natural conclusion, the sculpture of the great sphinx, due to its prognathism, would be that of a negroe (as noted by many European observers of the Great Sphinx). You can't only hold these racist views when they are convenient. You have to be consistent.
• Sayce said the Egyptians were members of the white race.
• Sayce then said (in 1891) that two black races inhabitated the Southern Nile Valley, the Nubians and Negroes. He said the Nubians, in spite oftheir black skins, were among the handsomest of mankind. AMAZINGLY, Sayce concluded that Shabako, Taharqa, and other Kushite Kings belonged to the White race.
• Four short years later, Sayce said in the book "The Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotus" that the Kushite Kings possessed "all the physical characteristics of the Negro." He now concluded that the Kushites were Negroes.
• Sayce reaffirmed his belief that the Kushites were Negroes in 1899 in another book.
• After saying that Negroes were subhuman in the 1890's, by 1911 he marveled at the sophisticated civilization and high culture that he found in Meroe (a negroe society). He stated that "the Ethiopian king and his black levies saved Jerusalem and the religion of Judah from destruction by the powerful Assyrian Sennacherib...The Negroes of Africa had saved the city and temple of Jerusalem."
• Also in 1911 (THE SAME YEAR), Sayce no longer considered Taharqa to be a negroe.
• In 1925, his book "Races of the Old Testament" was republished. In that book he let stand the statement that Kushite Kings were White.
• Due to this subject, this man appears in need of admittance to the insane asylum. He is all over the place. Are Kushites black or white?

If the public could trust mainstream scholarship on this topic, we would not have a debate. However, mainstream scholarship consists mostly of habitual liars when discussing the race of ancient egyptians. This has led to scholars pushing an opposing viewpoint, which seems much closer to the truth (not too mention common sense). You can read this for yourself in Henry Aubin's book, "The Rescue of Jerusalem."Rod (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Although some editors would like to use the word Afrocentrism in the opening paragraph to distract the lay reader from the real issues, Afrocentrists did not start this debate. Europeans were arguing over the race of Ancient Egyptians before any scholars that view Africa from Africa's point of view weighed into the debate. This article's monstrous falsification of history keeps pretending that this debate started in the 20th century, when there is plenty of evidence from peer reviewed secondary sources that the debate actually started hundreds of years before that.

• Count Volney discussed the race of Egyptians and the sphinx in 1785 when he called Egyptians "true negroes", which led to responses by the Champollion brothers
• Rienzi discussed the race of the Egyptians soon after
• Champollion the Younger (died in 1832) discussed the race of the Egyptians in his letters to his brother Champollion Figeac
• A quote from Champollion in 1829, "The opinion that the ancient population of Egypt belonged to the Negro African race, is an error long accepted as truth."
• Marius Fontanes said "...these red men would probably be Ethiopians modified by time and climate, or perhaps negroes that have reached the halfway mark between blackness and whiteness...Lepsius' canon gives...the proportions of the perfect Egyptian body; it has short arms and is Negroid or Negritian...The Ancient Egyptians were Negroes, but Negroes to the last degree."
• As you can clearly see, there were proponents and opponents of the Black Egyptian theory much earlier than the 20th century. This idea that 20th century Afrocentrists started this debate is a lie and I will not allow this falsehood to be imposed on the public.

The aforementioned statements can be viewed in "The African Origin of Civilization, pages 27-60" by Cheikh Anta Diop. This is a peer reviewed secondary source. Please attempt to refute these facts and justify the former opening statement that this debate started in the 20th century. Good luck.Rod (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Any feedback on the numerous scholars that debated whether or not the Ancient Egyptian civilization was black before the 20th century? Clearly, this debate was already happening in the 18th and 19th century and none of the parties in question could be described as Afrocentrists. The lead sentence seems to be as inaccurate as a statement that the Earth is flat. It seems reasonable that it should be changed.Rod (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the current opening statement (The notion of Ancient Egypt as a "black civilization" developed in Afrocentrism in the later 20th century, following Cheikh Anta Diop.[1])is a misrepresentation of the cited source. The cited source, Diop, apologized for having to deal with race at all and he was not an Afrocentrist. In his cited work, the first couple of chapters discuss the raging debate concerning the race of the Ancient Egyptians by 18th and 19th century Europeans. Diop further goes on to explain that most Ancient historians agreed that the Ancient Egyptians were black (so there wasn't really a debate until the onset of European imperialism and the associated propaganda). The citation and the pages cited do not support the statement that precedes the citation. This is a distortion and it's unencyclopedic.Rod (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy and this article should be congruent on this issue, but we need to be careful in both that we aren't doing original research - in other words, we need sources to say when the controversy (as opposed to sources about skin color) developed. Unless we can find those, we can't date it. As for Diop, Professor Douglas Northrop calls him "The father of the Afrocentric definition of the worldliness of Africa". Professor Tunde Adeleke calls him "the philosophical godfather of Afrocentrism." Molefi Kete Asante writes "most Afrocentrists have taken their cue from the late Senegalese scientist and historian Cheikh Anta Diop", etc.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a source above. "The African Origin of Civilization, pages 27-60" by Cheikh Anta Diop. Diop leads his book by discussing the controversy in the 18th and 19th century. Just because Diop organized this information and assembled it into a book that is still in print, doesn't mean he started the controversy. Many of Diop's points had already been made by European scholars, WEB DuBois, Marcus Garvey, etc. It's academically dishonest to pretend that the debate started in the 20th century when there is clear evidence from a peer reviewed secondary source that it did not.Rod (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The labyrinth

The problem with using examples is that they raise issues that perhaps don't belong here. Eg, looking at Herodotus: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide By Oxford University Press we find: "Armayor, O. Kimball. 1985. Herodotus' autopsy of the Fayoum: Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth of Egypt. Amsterdam: Gieben. Herodotus's description of the Labyrinth and Lake Moeris viewed as irreconcilable with the geographical and archaeological evidence, and therefore as based not on personal observation but on literary models."[10]. So how do we handle this to avoid giving the impression Diop is unchallenged on this? Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take out the labyrinth example. We are turning this into an article about Herodotus and we're spending too much time on him. He has his own article. Let's focus on the Ancient Egyptians on this page. I think it's fair and balanced to say that there are a lot of people that respect Herodotus' work and have cited him heavily in their more recent works, earning him the moniker, "Father of History." It's also safe to say that there are many that don't think Herodotus is trustworthy and would not base their work on his findings.Rod (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reduced the Herodotus text to a a few short sentences. I left in that some scholars don't think that he is reliable and especially about Egypt (which is contradicted by Diop, Heeren, and others). The vast majority of the anti-Herodotus text was taken from the Herodotus Wiki page, so it suffices to link to the Herodotus page and let readers read the article on Herodotus there.Rod (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have once again completely unbalanced the section in favor of your own POV. There now stand many lines of waffle about the few instances Diop could cull from a selective reading of the ancient texts to support his POV. Then follows two short sentences stating the unreliability thereof, with a single reference, and then immediately a bunch more lines from Diop bulking up his POV again. That is unbalanced, non-neutral and contrary to policy. If you want to remove the cant about Herodotus then all the waffle about this black face and that black limb must also be removed - people can read about it in the Diop article if they are really interested. Until you agree to remove the top half, the bottom half needs to remain as well. Wdford (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two sentences against Herodotus. There are two sentences for Herodotus. It is balanced. If you want to rewrite the two sentences against Herodotus, please do so. We don't need multiple paragraphs in this article on Herodotus pushing the POV that Herodotus is unreliable. That is your POV. I have posted recently numerous authors that support Herodotus and cite him extensively in their works on the Nile valley. Furthermore, why should we allow the duplication of information that is found in the Herodotus article in this article when we can just link to the Herodotus article?Rod (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation of Melanchroes

At some point, the citations have been improperly relocated regarding the melanchroes translation.

From "The History in Black: African-Americans...": "Still, one cannot ignore his description of the Egyptians as having black skins (melanchroes) and curly hair..." I understand that the book is likely trying to prove the opposite, but they have conceded the point that melanchroes translates as black skinned in the aforementioned quote. The author has translated back from the English (black skins) into Greek (melanchroes). page 154

From "Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference...": "Yet, Egyptians were also considered black skinned. For example, Herodotus describes the Colchians as "an Egyptian people" (Aigyptioi) because of their black skin (melanchroes) and woolly hair (oulotriches).Rod (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In the Shavit book it states that melanchroes can be translated as any color from bronzed to black, which in plain English means that Black is okay and any color between bronzed and black is also okay. This is a poor source for those trying to prove that melanchroes shouldn't be translated as black, as the author concedes that black is one possible translation.Rod (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We are back to this topic. Melanchroes is translated as black and dark. There are as many scholars translating the word as black as dark. You will never be able to prove that it is only translated as dark, as there are too many books in publication translating it as black while discussing Ancient Egypt.

Evidence from this article with citations:

The Black African model relied heavily on the interpretation of the writings of Classical historians. Several Ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians and Ethiopians had complexions that were "melanchroes". There is considerable controversy over the translation of melanchroes. Most scholars translate it as black. Some scholars translate it as "dark" or “dark skinned”.Rod (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That may or may not be true. However, the notion of black egypt is solidly less than 100 years old. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are misinformed on this topic. This debate has been raging since the 18th century. Count Constantin de Volney reported on the Egyptian race in 1783, "...all have a bloated face...flat nose, thick lips...on seeing the head (of the sphinx) typically negroe in all its features...Herodotus says...'black with woolly hair'...the Ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native born Africans."Rod (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've linked to WP:BRD for information on how editing on Wiki works. You make a bold edit (very bold in this case; you are changing the lead to an article on probation), I revert, and we discuss here.

I will revert until there is a reliable source saying the whole black egyptian thing started before Diop. We can discuss here.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See the section that I added below titled "Opening paragraph." It provides the reliable evidence that "the whole black egyptian" thing started before Diop and the 20th century. It started when Herodotus and others said the Egyptians were black with woolly hair. It continued in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries when European scholars (e.g. Volney, Champollion brothers, etc.) argued the issue in their published books. All of these examples can be found in one book (African Origin...) by Diop, but he is summarizing primary sources that preceded him by centuries.Rod (talk)

Circumcision

As it currently reads, the sentence about circumcision in the Middle East seems like an isolated and random factoid that does not relate to the article's topic (Ancient Egypt, the race controversy, and the Black theory). An editor indicated that circumcision in the Middle East is older (not true) than in A.E. and that it therefore could have spread from the Middle East to A.E. That appears to be original research, as the cited sentence on the Middle East does not draw any such conclusions. Please reread the paragraph, as it clearly states that circumcision is 6000 years old in A.E., which is equivalent to the 4th millennium BCERod (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we remove the sentence on circumcision in the Middle East, as it does not relate to the article's topic and doesn't draw any conclusions that relate to the article's topic?Rod (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)