Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Asiatic race theory, Caucasian / Hamitic hypothesis and Dynastic race theory are the same

Reading the last part of the article, I wonder why these sections are arbitrarily split, when they all seem to argue for a West Asian component? Which is basically what has since been confirmed by genetic testing, though the article presents it as if it's completely rejected. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk There is a clear distinction between the old, racialist hypotheses from the 19th century and modern genetics. These old, essentialist models argued that an “advanced”, “external” race displaced the local, African populations and initiated the development of the Egyptian civilization. This is completely different from the conclusions of some genetic studies. Those studies have identified lineages (genetic mutations) from haplogroup J which originated from West Asia along with haplogroup group E which derived from East Africa. Furthermore, haplogroup E emerged earlier and has been attributed to a local population which descended from groups in northeast Africa/Horn of Africa whereas the younger haplogroup J has been attributed to a gradual genetic flow from the Near East over time. Also, haplogroups do not conclusively indicate skin color but population relationships and ancestry.There is still dispute among modern scholars about the value of genetics in relation to this specific question. Several scholars favor a multi-disciplinary approach rather than relying on genetics as a conclusive answer. Currently, the international consensus (UNESCO) among scholars is that the Egyptian civilization was ethnically heterogeneous and this view was based on a range of evidence including historical linguistics, biological anthropology, historical texts and visual iconography. Those scholars opposed the other aforementioned models and the corresponding information has already been cited. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I see, the part about the genetics was more of an afterthought, the main point being that the three sections listed all appear to be arguing for the same thing (West Asian/Mesopotamian influence), but now they're represented as distinct, while the "Black Egyptian hypothesis" section also draws on various different theories, but is presented as one monolithic theory. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This is merely standard POV pushing. Any arbitrary comment which even vaguely supports a Black Egyptian position gets massively emphasized, no matter how tenuous the samples and the connections, while hard science which supports a West Asian origin is fudged out. The DNA evidence is continually stacking up in support of a West Asian origin, and so the Black Egyptian authors are reduced to trying to discredit the DNA evidence - by citing tenuous linguistic "connections", reinterpreting skull measurements and scrutinizing carefully selected 4000-year-old paintings etc. However the mountain of hard evidence which supported the old 19th century hypotheses has not gone away either, and so it gets presented in carefully structured ways in attempts to diminish its significance. Interesting times. Wdford (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wdford Stop with the personal attacks and accusations. I have explicitly made it clear that the international consensus among historians in regards to the issue (“mixed population”).@FunkMonk is simply enquiring on the format of the sub-sections. Secondarily, genetics do not point to a West Asian origin but have determined the majority of the Y-chromosome paternal clades among Egyptians to fall under the E haplogroup which stemmed from a source population that emerged in East Africa. I would rather avoid wasting time debating this as the forthcoming UNESCO publication will conclude the matter. WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk That is a valid point. I suppose those hypotheses were formulated by different authors(i.e. Petrie and Seligman) whereas the Black Egyptian hypothesis is usually associated with Diop as the original proponent. Other scholars within the Black Egyptian hypothesis seem to echo Diop’s views rather than posit a fundamentally distinct view. I think the sub section could be combined but other users may have a differing view ? (You’ll probably need a consensus vote for that type of change) WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's going to be easy, was just throwing it out there, as it seems like a mess. As it is now, I think most people skimming the article would think "Asiatic race theory" would refer to East Asians, when it's basically the same as the other two. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk The section title could be renamed but I would await for other responses on this issue. WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"would think "Asiatic race theory" would refer to East Asians" How is East Asia remotely relevant to Asiatics or Asians? Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Because most people today would think that to be synonymous with East Asians, just look at common usage. I'm well aware and have made perfectly clear that in this context it refers to West Asia, which is part of the point of this thread, various synonyms for basically the same theory is used in three different titles. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023

23.28.167.2 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This statement is false. The beginning was not the upper Nile. It was in the kingdom of KUSH [ancient Sudan] where the first Sultan was crowned Pharaoh. Its in the stories. I t was a giant cliff side that a man climbed and spoke with Ra. Here is where Ra declared the explorer the First of the Pharaohs.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

genetic study of ancient Egyptian mummies

the genetic study of Egypt by schuenman 2017 on 91 mummies the first successful genomic study that utilized two previous DNA studies explained explained by supported by 4 references/ articles / study by a forensic company, should be included. The recent scientific studies of genetic ancestry of ancient Egyptians reveal high level of affinity between the Ancient Egyptians to modern populations from the Near East and the Levant, and revealed the genetic continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians with minute influx from central Africans and Ethiopia Schuenemann, v.; Peltzer, A (2017). "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods". Nature Communications. 8: 15694. doi:10.1038/ncomms15694.Bob Yirka. "Faces of three ancient Egyptian mummies recreated using DNA technology and thermal meshing"."Parabon® Recreates Egyptian Mummy Faces from Ancient DNA".. i object to removing this well made contribution to this Wikipedia article Zahida2013 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

concur Viibird (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet comment. MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

re arrange the study to add a newer study about the male haplogroup of the three men whose complete genome was deciphered:

As a result of recent ancestral genaeology study of the first successful genomic wide data of mummies of Ancient Egyptians with successful complete genome data from three males, published in 2017 by Schuenemann et al. extracted DNA from 151 Egyptian mummies from Middle Egypt, confirmed that the ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the non-african peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant. This is the Eastern Mediterranean which today includes the countries of Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The study also found genetic continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians and no relationship with Ethiopian DNA.

Modern Egyptians share 8% of their genome with central Africans/Sub Saharan, far more than ancient ones, according to the study, published in the journal Nature Communications. The influx of sub-Saharan genes only occurred within the last 700 years.

The genetic did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300 year timespan studied, suggesting that the population remained genetically relatively unaffected by foreign conquest and rule.

The far-reaching data set gained from looking at mitochondrial/nuclear genomes: “This is not just the DNA of one person. It’s the DNA of the parents, grandparents, grandparents’ parents, grand-grand-grandparents’ parents and so for. This study counters prior skepticism about the possibility of recovering reliable ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies.

"The first genome data from ancient Egyptian mummies"."Ancient Egyptian race mystery now solved".discovery reveals genetic history of ancient Egyptians "Ancient Egyptian mummies DNA". {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)"genome testing on ancient Egyptian mummies". Forensics company Parabon Nanolabs recreated faces of the three ancient Egyptian men whom all their genome was deciphered using DNA technology and thermal meshing. It showed that all three of the mummies had once been young men with skin the color of modern Mediterranean or Middle Eastern people with deep brown eyes.

Bob Yirka. "Faces of three ancient Egyptian mummies recreated using DNA technology and thermal meshing"."Parabon® Recreates Egyptian Mummy Faces from Ancient DNA".. Two of the three men had Y paternal haplogroup of J1-m267 reported by a later study, and one with haplogroup L1a1a1 specific to North Africa. Zahida2013 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This latest edit from Zahida2013 was clearly very unbalanced: [1] Presenting a single study of three individuals is one thing, but acting as though that single study of three individuals allows us to make sweeping generalizations about the ethnic makeup of all ancient Egypt is wildly off-base, and violates not only WP:SECONDARY but WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative the study is about DNA from 91 mummies of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA and 3 complete complete full DNA of three men. the nuclear and mitochondrial of the 91 mummies which is the DNA of the 91 mummies plus their parents and grand parents all showing close affinity with DNA of contemporary and ancient DNA of east Mediterranean Levant. resembling current Egyptian DNA but is far from Ethiopian DNA and central Africans DNA and other DNA of the rest of the world. the study was conforming to archaeological studies mentioned in the study. the study is cited by 5 later studies who used the DNA results in their own analysis. Zahida2013 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

How spread out along the geographic clines of ancient Egypt were these mummies? How representative of the various strata of society? How deep was the time horizon? Not very, right? And even if it were a very representative sample, we'd still need a reliable secondary source in order for us to make a sweeping statement about the ethnic makeup of ancient Egypt. Hell, we'd need several. Because this is, after all, a controversial topic. And by reliable secondary source, I do not mean an op-ed by a non-expert (is this the same Philip Perry who is married to Liz Cheney?) or a press release. Generalrelative (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative my contribution about 2017by Schuenemman was removed and replaced with incorrect edit that gave themselves to make wrong conclusions not found in the study. the study included 2 previous studies of mummies from upper Egypt. the new edit ignored the nuclear DNA which is a compilation of several generations back in time of each individual of the 91 mummies studied spread along 1300 years. I have provided expert second opinions from 4 articles and i add this does

Watson, T. (2017). "Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians' ancestry". Nature: 546. doi:10.1038/546017a. {{cite journal}}: Text "17" ignored (help)

the new edit is incorrect. I am a physician epidemiologist with 20 years of study of DNA science especially the ancestry genetics ancestral genealogy which this study is about.

nuclear DNA included the gene of whiteness of skin color and 3 complete DNA of three males found to be 2 j1-m267-p58 as reported by another study taking the DNA data from this study. 5 studies have cited this study and used their data in their studies. I will provide the new study later. the third male was haplogroup l1a1 but specific to North Africa. the study found no relationship with Ethiopian DNA and only 2% of subsaharan DNA compared to 8% in current Egyptians confirmed to be from recent influx in the last 700 years. Zahida2013 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you do not seem to understand the issue here. My problem was not with the study itself but rather with the interpretation you gave to it, which went far beyond what the authors themselves stated, and the way you used it in the article to make a sweeping conclusion. Further, as WikiUser4020 explained to you in their edit summary, The wider conclusions of the study have already been referenced in a sub section in relation to this topic and criticised for sampling bias. Dumuzid and Austronesier also reverted you and endorsed WikiUser's rationale. Please understand that your expertise is valuable to the project, but only if you can learn and abide by our rules, which include WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. The latter means that you will actually need to persuade others rather than simply informing us about your credentials. As to your assertion the new edit is incorrect, I'm not sure what you mean, since the four of us have simply reverted what you sought to add. Generalrelative (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative I did not provide my own interpretation. my contribution only reported info taken verbatim from the citations I included ( the study itself Schuenemman 2017, the report by max blanck website who made the study, another study from Nature journal, and Parabon. you did not read the legitimate citations I provided from nature journal , max blanck, CNN, Parabon etc Zahida2013 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Zahida2013 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative I did not provide my own interpretation. my contribution only reported info taken verbatim from the citations I included ( the study itself Schuenemman 2017, the report by max blanck website who made the study, another study from Nature journal, and Parabon. you did not read the legitimate citations I provided from nature journal , max blanck institute , CNN, Parabon etc Zahida2013 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Zahida2013 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Umm, I did read them. Telling me I did not is assuming bad faith, which is prohibited.

Since you appear to need this spelled out for you "verbatim", here are some quotes from the original piece (Schuenemman et al. 2017).

1:

It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa.

2:

Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek45. However, a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time. All of the material was excavated by Rubensohn in the early twentieth century, whose main interest was to obtain literary papyri from cartonnage rather than to excavate human remains. As is customary for the time, Rubensohn’s archaeological records are highly incomplete and many of the finds made by him were removed undocumented from their contexts. Furthermore, many of his excavation diaries and notes were destroyed during the Second World War19. This lack of context greatly diminishes the possibility of ‘thick description’ of the analysed individuals, at least in terms of their names, titles and materially expressed identity.

I hope that's helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative these are the articles I took info verbatim from :

Watson T. Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians' ancestry. Nature. 2017 May 30;546(7656):17. doi: 10.1038/546017a. PMID: 28569832.

Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. (2017, May 30). The first genome data from ancient Egyptian mummies: Ancient Egyptians were most closely related to ancient populations from the Near East. ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170530115141.htm

Schuenemann, V. J.; Peltzer, A.; Welte, B.; Pelt, W. P. v.; Molak, M.; Wang, C.-C.; Furtwängler, A.; Urban, C.; Reiter, E.; Nieselt, K. et al.: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods. Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017)

https://www.shh.mpg.de/423779/mummy-genomes%7CMax Planck institute of GeoAnthropology|The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-genome-heritage%7CDNA discovery reveals genetic history of ancient Egyptians by Thomas Page

Even Parabon Nanolabs rereated faces of the three ancient Egyptian men whom all their genome was deciphered using DNA technology and thermal meshing. It showed that all three of the mummies had once been young men with skin the color of modern Mediterranean or Middle Eastern people with deep brown eyes.

Bob Yirka. "Faces of three ancient Egyptian mummies recreated using DNA technology and thermal meshing"."Parabon® Recreates Egyptian Mummy Faces from Ancient DNA"..

Sahakyan, H., Margaryan, A., Saag, L., et al. (2021). "Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267". Sci Rep. 11: 6659. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85883-2. {{cite journal}}: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 2 (help) Zahida2013 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll say this one last time for your benefit: even if we take facial reconstruction at face value, showing that three individuals "looked Middle-Eastern" tells us almost nothing about ancient Egyptian phenotypes in general. This is because we know that ancient Egypt was highly diverse –– with significant variation along the Nile valley cline in particular –– with near-constant influx of populations from both the Middle-East and Nubia. Further, when we're looking at individuals from the Ptolemaic or Roman periods, there's a good chance we're looking at people who identified as ethnically Greek, Roman or something else. Generalrelative (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative the study says the rule of foreigners did not affect the DNA composition from 1400 BCE to 300 AD. two of the men were from pre ptolomic ( see study discussion and were j1-p58 (dubbed semitic per familytreeeDNA website) dominant in current Arabic people. the nuclear DNA composition of the three men which is taken from their parents and grand parents and grand grandparents, and this nuclear DNA (aka autosomal DNA aka genomic AKA chromosomes) are similar to the nuclear DNA mix found in 80 mummies and mitochondrial DNA in all 90 mummies. this nuclear/mitochondrial is the same in all time span spread around from 1400 BCE to 300 AD proving continuity of DNA of the residents of the city proving foreign rule did not change that continuity. also the study confirmed the continuity to present egyptians but with increase from 8% of subsaharan mitochondrial to 16% in current egyptians explained by recent influx of the past 700 years as both this study and Pagani et Al confirmed 80% of ancient Egyptian DNA in non African. this 2017 study utilized Pagani study and all other previous studies in their analysis.

here is what I found in the study and supplements:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694/figures/4

Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5

The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17.

Population genetic analysis of nuclear DNA:

On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a

Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level.

This scientific study of genetic ancestry reveals that:

Ancient Egyptian mummies DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient Egyptians and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant, and genetic continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians” and no proven relationship with Ethiopian DNA or east horn of Africa.

Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.

but we clearly show that 2,000 years ago, Egypt was more Near-Eastern, not less, as proposed by the model in Pagani et al. with non-African ancestry appearing more recently. We discuss this in the Discussion section (see line 406 to 419).

we can more reliably estimate the origin and timing of admixture with nuclear data.

background information on Egypt’s history (lines: 57-69) Zahida2013 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative How did you "we know ancient Egypt was highly diverse ethnically, and what made you think Nubia and upper Egypt were different from lower Egypt?? you made assumption that Nubia is not Arabic against nubians belief. DNA testing of Sudan and Nubia show 80% j1 haplogroup. how do you know ancient nubians were different?? Zahida2013 (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative You took paragraphs from discussion section of study and out of context cutting off the author need for studies to prove premises. a premise that nubians were not semites is baseless, photos on mummies are of Greek persons is guess work because they most likely how the ancient egyptians looked like white but not Greeks Zahida2013 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zahida2013 This is largely unbalanced and inaccurate. First of all schuenamenn 2017 study concluded that “Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx”, not that “The study also found genetic continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians and no relationship with Ethiopian DNA.”

another thing you seem to be missing is that the conclusion of this study is exclusive about ancient Egyptians of late period of middle Egypt only. It’s not to be generalized on all late period ancient Egyptians (i.e upper Egypt), nor to be generalized on Egyptians of earlier periods like middle kingdom or old kingdom including their inhabitants of middle Egypt. There is stated by academics and reliable sources. (William H. Stiebing, 2023) in Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture writes:

However, this study was conducted on a small sample sizeof mummies from one site in Middle Egypt dating to the New Kingdom and later. Therefore, the results cannot represent earlier populations of Egyptians or Egyptians from Upper Egypt who were geographically closer to sub-saharan populations Stephan rostie (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether modern aDNA research can produce meaningful results about the immediate geographical origin (autochthonous, migrants from the northwest, or migrant from the south) of the population that produced the Ancient Egyptian civilization at the current state of spatiotemporal sampling density, what you're doing here is basically applying results of this research to a debate that is based on an obsolete paradigm of "classifying" human diversity, viz. "human races". The Ancient Egyptian race controversy is therefore essentially dead in scientific discourse and only survives in popular discourse kept alive by people who personally choose to continue classifying human individuals into races based on crude phenotypical features even when modern science tells us that this choice is baseless. Throwing in modern aDNA research into this debate is like using modern physics to establish the density of the luminiferous aether, or the distance to the rim of the Flat Earth. –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier the three males have Nuclear DNA (admixture of several generations of 100 ancestral) which match Nuclear DNA found in 80 mummies and found the three males are from the community which did not differ between the three groups ( pre ptolomic, ptolomic, Roman eras) and close to near eastern peoples from near east like Saudi Arabia Yemen Emirates and Levant) . nuclear DNA have the genes for physical features such as eye color, skin color, face physical features such as nose size etc, heights, etc called genetic phenotyping used by forensics. it's not guess work but used by forensics and police to identify old remains in cold cases. Parabon Nanolabs company used DNA phenotyping and physicals of remains to identify the three egyptians.

see Parabon. https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/phenotyping Zahida2013 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

the three males had full nuclear DNA mix that matches the partial DNA nuclear mix found in 80 mummies and that's how they decided the sex of mummies. so the three males' nuclear DNA!! was chosen to compare with nuclear DNA of ancient and current nuclear!! DNA of many countries. they closely were matched to near east nuclear DNA. their full!! nuclear DNA contained all the physical features genes of hair type and color face shape skin and eye color etc. Parabon used by department of health in USA and by FBI to see facial and physical profiles of old case remains and suspects with absolute convicting results. codis used to get race of person since 1980s from one str test( native American or white European or Arabic ancestry ). however DNA detective is increasing on fast pace with full genome! collected from hundreds millions around the world with results in seconds by computer informatics apps Zahida2013 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier nuclear DNA was found partially in 80 mummies and fully from three male mummies. the nuclear DNA was similar along all 80 mummies and the three men were chosen to represent the similar nuclear DNA among the 80 mummies. the nuclear DNA contain morphology genes ( phenotyping, genetic) shown in mugshot photos by Parabon Nanolabs. each nuclear DNA of the 80 mummies represent a mix of last ten generations ( 300 years) of 400 different ancestors of each nuclear DNA profile. all nuclear DNA remnants in 80 mummies across 1300 years were similar ( melting pot) found close affinity to current and ancient Near easterners of Saudi Arabia Yemen Levant. the nuclear DNA in the 80 mummies was enough to distinguish males from females! Zahida2013 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with Schuenemann-Krause is interpretation and misrepresentation. The mummies and remains they studied were not Ancient Egyptian, they were Late Period, and had nothing to do with the Ancient Egyptians of the New Kingdom, for instance. In the Parabon study, all 3 whole genome mummies were identified as most similar to Mizrahi Jews living in Morocco, Tunesia and Yemen, respectively, even more than the Modern Egyptian population. What seems to stump Schuenemann and Krause is the presence of Bantu and Nilotic dna in the Modern Egyptians, which they attributed to the (19th century) slave trade. Problem: their dna goes back in the region over 10,000 years.

(PARABON NANOLABS) DNA Phenotyping on Ancient DNA from Egyptian Mummies

Janet Cady, Mark Wilson, and Ellen Greytak* Parabon NanoLabs, Inc.

The Snapshot ancestry database of subjects with known ancestry was searched for the subjects with the most similar admixture proportions to each individual. They were found to be Jewish individuals from Yemen, Morocco, and Tunisia, respectively.

On how they guestimated the features of the 3 faces.

The two lower-coverage subjects were both missing the SNP rs12913832, which is the primary SNP associated with eye color, so eye color and hair color were predicted assuming AA and AG genotypes, which are the most common genotypes in the Middle Eastern population. There were also very few skin color SNPs available for these two subjects, resulting in low-confidence predictions.

They may have 3 or so haplotypes from the New Kingdom era, which doesn't justify the claim that his study spans the width of the New Kingdom and Late Period to Roman Era. The 3 whole genome mummies or remains are dated to the 8th-6th century BC and the 1st century BC/1st century AD.

JK2134 776 – 569 BC

JK2888 97 – 2 BC

JK2911 769 – 560 BC

How did they end up with the faces we're now familiar with?

Each subject was compared to the previous subject and heat maps were calculated to show the differences among the face predictions. These differences were then emphasized to create caricatured faces, which were combined with the pigmentation predictions to create composites of the individuals’ likely appearance at age 25 by a forensic artist.

So this is the problem: in Egyptology, the whole Fayoum complex is considered not Ancient Egyptian. So when Schuenemann and Krause talk about "These Ancient Egyptians", they're either being deceptive or fraudulent. And when they elevate the Late Period remains from an obscure graveyard south of Cairo, over the dna from the Valley Of The Kings, of famous pharaohs, that's an agenda. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Academic views on bias in Egyptology/modern studies Pov

The sheer amount of cherrypicked Afrocentric pov in this section is astounding the arguments put forward here are no different than those of any other afrocentric conspiracy theory and give undue weight to these fringe views i recommend this section which is entirely the product of a single agenda driven account should be deleted 64.90.222.34 (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The section seems quite well sourced to me. Generalrelative (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@ In line with Generalrelative’s comments. A range of mainstream sources are included and this subsection has already received consensus agreement from other users over the previous year. The only identifiable source which can be described as “Afrocentric” is Cheikh Anta Diop who predates the concept and was a professional historian that served as a member of the International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of the General History of Africa which is a key source for this article. WikiUser4020 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Ehret and S.O.Y Keita are both well known to be sympathetic to afrocentrism. The egyptian section of the General History of Africa has been widely criticized and Is generally considered suspect amongst anthropologists, archeologists, and egyptologists precisely because Cheik Anta Diop inserted his biases into it 64.90.222.34 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The personal sympathies of the authors does not diminish the quality of their academic output. All historians have perspectives and personal persuasions. Keita and Ehret are both mainstream sources and widely cited across the field. Keita has also worked with the UNESCO President of the International Scientific Committee for Volume IX of General History of Africa, Augustin Holl, who will iterate the consensual view on the issue. The initial reception to the Diop’s chapter was initially negative although this has improved over time with some authors noting the Eurocentric climate during the context of his writings (1974-1981). You have not presented any opposing references which dispute the criticisms raised by these authoritative sources. Also, critics of Afrocentrism are also cited such as Frank Yurco, Zahi Hawass, Bernard R. Ortiz De Montell and Mary Lefkowitz. Although, several of these critics have died or have become inactive over the years. Regardless, the article captures a wide range of views. All the sources including Ehret and Keita share the current consensus view that Ancient Egypt was a heterogeneous society but the latter two have a greater scholarly focus on its early origins and its African context. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• I would like to invite Ario1234 to participate in this discussion rather than edit warring. Do you take issue with any of the points raised by WikiUser4020 above? If so, which ones? Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Generalrelative Similarly, Ario1234 provide sourced evidence for your criticisms of the cited references rather than removing long-established content. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll go through the section bit by it:

  "Various scholars have highlighted the role of colonial racism in shaping the attitudes of early Egyptologists, and criticised the continued over-representation of North American and European perspectives in the field."

  -- This tries to insinuate that the supposed over-representation of modern North American and European scholars in the field is the same thing as bias (in particular racist bias), which it isn't. The second part of the sentence should be removed as the geographic or ethnic origin of scholars is not in itself relevant to the issue of bias.

  "Christopher Ehret in 1996 wrote that "Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt".

  -- This claim by Ehret is not relevant to the issue of bias so should be removed. It's just a statement of Ehret's theories regarding the origin of Egypt.

  "In 2023, Ehret recounted that the previous two centuries of Western scholarship had presented Egypt as an “offshoot of earlier Middle Eastern developments”. He continued to argue that these old ideas had influenced the attitudes of scholars in other disciplines such as genetics and their approaches even when existing archaeological, linguistic and biological anthropological evidence had determined the founding locales of Ancient Egypt to be the descendants of longtime populations in Northeastern Africa which included Nubia and the northern Horn of Africa."

  -- This paragraph just asserts that Ehret's theories are correct and insinuates that anyone who has a different view is biased. This whole paragraph should be removed.

  "Stuart Tyson Smith wrote in 2018 that a common practice among Egyptologists was to "divorce Egypt from its proper northeast African context, instead framing it as fundamentally part of a Near Eastern or "Mediterranean" economic, social and political sphere, hardly African at all or at best a crossroad between the Near East, the eastern Mediterranean and Africa, which carries with it the implication that it is ultimately not really part of Africa". He explicitly criticises Van De Mieroop's comments that ancient Egypt was clearly 'in Africa' it was not so clearly 'of Africa' as reflecting "long-standing Egyptological biases". He concluded that the interrelated cultural features shared between northeast African dynamic and Pharaonic Egypt are not "survivals" or coincidence, but shared traditions with common origins in the deep past"."

  -- This is just another assertion that anyone who disagrees with the "African origin" theories of people like Stuart Tyson Smith are necessarily biased, rather than just having a different view.

  "Andrea Manzo wrote in 2022 that early Egyptologists had situated the origins of dynastic Egypt within a "broad Hamitic horizon that characterised several regions of Africa" and that these views had continued to dominate in the second half of the twentieth century. Manzo stated more recent studies had "pointed out the relevance of African elements to the rise of Egyptian culture, following earlier suggestions on Egyptian kingship and religion by Henri Frankfort" which countered the traditional view that considered Egypt "more closely linked to the Near East than to the rest of Africa"."

  -- This is just about different theories not about bias. Again the insinuation is that anyone who supports a 'Middle Eastern origin' rather than an 'African origin' of Egypt is necessarily biased, just because they have a different view. The paragraph should be removed

  "Genetic studies have been criticised by several scholars for a range of methodological problems and providing misleading, interpretations on racial classifications."

  -- This is just trying to insinuate that genetic studies can't be trusted and are biased. "misleading, interpretations on racial classifications" doesn't mean anything but makes it sound like genetic studies are racist somehow. Most of the references are old and pre-date the proper development of ancient DNA studies so are outdated.

  "Boyce and Keita argued that certain studies have adopted a selective approach in sampling, such as using samples drawn mostly from northern (Lower) Egypt, which has historically had the presence of more foreigners from the Mediterranean and the Near East, and using those samples as representing the rest of Egypt. Thus, excluding the 'darker' south or Upper Egypt which presents a false impression of Egyptian variability. The authors also note that chromosomal patterns have featured inconsistent labelling such as Haplotype V as seen the with use of misleading terms like "Arabic" to describe it, implying this haplotype is of 'Middle Eastern' origins. However, when the haplotype V variant is looked at in context, it does have a very high prevalence in African countries above the Sahara and in Ethiopia."

  -- This is from a 2005 paper which pre-dates the proper development of ancient DNA studies. Terms like 'Haplotype V' aren't even used anymore. Again it insinuates that DNA studies are biased, rather than possibly lacking sufficient data. The section is supposed to be about bias so this paragraph can be removed.

  "In 2022, Danielle Candelora criticised how modern DNA studies are misused for political and racist agendas. As an example she cites the media echo about the Schuenemann genome study published in 2017, which was "sensationalized in the media as proof that Egyptians were not black Africans" in spite of its methodological limits, and taken by white suprematists as "scientific evidence" to justify their view on the achievements of the Ancient Egyptian civilisation. Candelora also noted that the media overlooked methodological limitations with the study such as the "untested sampling methods, small sample size, and problematic comparative data".

  -- This is about media reporting on ancient DNA studies rather than supposed bias in Egyptology or genetic studies. It insinuates that the media is biased by insinuating that they intentionally "overlooked" supposed shortcomings in the Scheunemann study, rather than just reporting the findings of the study. It tries to smear the media and Schuenemann by mentioning white supremacists and 'political and racist agendas'. The misuse of DNA studies by white supremacists doesn't in itself have anything to do with supposed bias (or lack of bias) in DNA studies. None of this paragraph really has any demonstrable connection to bias in the media or in genetic studies so should be removed. Ario1234 (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  None of the assertions above have any supporting, sources. Various academic sources have stated that bias has been an underlying feature of the race controversy and approach of the related disciplines. None of the cited sources state or implicitly imply that genetic studies should not be trusted. They are critical of the interpretations and use of the genetic studies to make wider, conclusive claims in relation to this topic. Your claims are a clear, misrepresentation of the sources. Hence, unless you can provide countervailing sources then this is rooted in your personal lay views which should not take precedence over credible, well sourced references as noted by Generalrelative. WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is rather your presentation of sources, your inclusion of irrelevant content/sources, outdated sources, meaningless statements, insinuations etc, which are all clearly driven by your personal agenda, which can be seen from your other comments further up this page. Ario1234 (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Ario1234 You ignored my point about providing credible sources to support your views and continue with these claims of bad faith. The sources are clearly quoted, the material is directly relevant for this article in terms of providing a more rounded, contextual basis and the statements are far from meaningless but carry strong informative value for the wider public. Your inability to provide credible sources, accusations of bad faith and continued disruptive edit warring show this is a fruitless discussion. Others have reverted your edits and your actions lack consensus hence the paragraph can stand. In future, I would recommend you raise disputes via talk rather than simply remove credible sources simply because you dislike the information and have a particular viewpoint. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's pretty obvious what game you're trying to play here, inserting your spam into every page about Egypt and pretending that its reasonable because you post a bunch of 'sources'. Ario1234 (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Ario1234 You again ignore my points repeatedly about providing supporting sources and evidence. Instead, you continue with personal attacks as you cannot or seem reluctant to provide objective and credible sources which counter the views of experts in those fields. Attacking my efforts to help develop the encyclopedia for public information does not help your case either. I will not respond to any of your personal attacks but await others to make any conclusive judgements on this matter per consensus. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• I won't address all points raised, and will first of all refrain from labelling any of the participants in this discussion with ideological tags (which is a silly excercise, unless you're out to get blocked).

About Candelora (2022): it is a very intelligent and insightful piece that deserves to be cited here. I had some issues before with the way WikiUser4020 paraphrased its key points into wikitext, but this has long been settled. Nothing in her paper is a "smear"; read it well. If you find fault with the way her observations are represented here, I am open to further changes. But a big NO from me if you want to remove it as a source.

Ehret (1999) is indeed misplaced in the section "Scholarly views on bias...". I have repeatedly explained that this article is not to present arguments in favor of one or the other side of the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy"; obviously, this is not the place to enact the controversy here (which is a stupid thing to do in the 21th century, not just here, but generally). Ok, Ehret says that the "Ancient Egyptian civilization was [...] fundamentally African". Great, but how is this related to the question of bias? Ehret is of course 100% citeable as a giant of African studies, but please always in the proper context. It's not material for this article, but belongs in an article about the Origins of the Ancient Egyptian civilization without any reference to the fucking dead "race controversy". (The smear starts when you contexualize great scholarship such as Ehret's in a pseudo-scientific discussion such as the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy".)

Ehret (2023) is a different story. It is very explicitly about bias; maybe it needs to be paraphrased more clearly (what about citing what Ehret says about where old biased notions come from: "rooted as they are in the self-serving racialist presumptions of nineteenth-century Europeans"). So again, no, don't remove it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier You offer some valid points and are proposing amendments rather than outright removal which is a far more constructive point of discussion. However, I still disagree with the point about Ehret’s 1997 quotation. He is noting that the Africa origins of Ancient Egypt is not usually recognized which is suggestive of implicit bias in interpretations and wider perceptions. I can agree with moving it into the section on modern scholarship rather than a total removal. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. And I like Austronesier's suggestion to quote rather than paraphrase Ehret 2023. Generalrelative (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"In ways and to an extent usually not recognized" is about facts, not causes (= bias). Anyway, moving it to a different section is a good solution.

Maybe off-topic here, but what is actually the purpose of "Position of modern scholarship"? IMO, it should present the position of modern scholarship about the controversy (in a nutshell: the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" is dumb, per Yurco and myriads of other scholars). Nothing else. Plus maybe about one or two pointers to what acutally matters in modern scholarship when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptian civilization (+ links to WP pages that cover these things). Origins means a lot. Origins of cultural expression, the physical origins of its people, the origins of its language. Three related but different things that defy one-dimensional monocausal narratives. –Austronesier (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much summarizes what we need to convey to the reader (IMHO). Generalrelative (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier@Generalrelative, Austronesier can perhaps add the specific quote from Ehret in relation to bias as this issue is discussed across several pages in his 2023 book.

In relation to the point on modern scholarship, it appears to convey the views of current scholars on the ethnicity of ancient Egyptian which overlaps with the history of the race controversy. These two subject matters are often featured in academic publications as interchangeable. The purpose of the article may need to be expanded upon to account for this in that case considering the difficulty in maintaining a separate distinction over the long-term. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Mistranslation or misquote

"Africans have nothing to do with the pyramids scientifically" - >this cannot be right since Egyptians are Africans and the pyramids were built by inhabitants of Africa. (t · c) buidhe 06:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: That's a direct quotation taken from one of the cited sources. Two sources are cited for that statement. One of them contains the quotation, and the other one says the same thing paraphrased, and makes it clear that "Africans" in this context refers to the Black race, not the inhabitants of the entire continent, which includes a variety of ethnic groups. This quote was made in response to attempts by US comedian Kevin Hart promoting the revisionist claim that ancient Egypt's rulers and its people were Black. This context seems clear enough in the sentences following that quotation. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I read the surrounding text.

Perhaps it's verifiable, but I don't think it's necessary to include. The only source supporting the translation may not be wp rs. There's another quote later on which gets the point across and doesn't make him sound like an idiot. (t · c) buidhe 14:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)