Talk:Population history of Egypt/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kemp material

I'm not sure what to do with this. Kemp's comments are complex and my fix doesn't solve that problem. Maybe a source commenting upon Kemp would be better.Doug Weller talk 10:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am looking into it now. Once I have read all the material, I will try to extract Kemp's actual conclusions. Wdford (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are my extracts from Kemp - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation; By Barry J. Kemp, Chapter 1

The Peopling of Egypt

The samples available for study are only a tiny, sad and unrepresentative remnant.

It cannot be assumed that the methods used to determine race by modern police departments, will work for ancient Egyptians.

There is a noticeable difference in “ethnic characteristics” between the skulls of ancient Egyptian males and females, “as if each half of the population had a different origin”.

The Thousand Years of Pooling

There is no single ancient Egyptian population to study, but a diversity of local populations.

Predynastic skulls, all from Upper Egypt, appear to be noticeably different in their measurements from an Old Kingdom group from tombs around the pyramids of Giza.

It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons, and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt.

Imagining Egyptians

The black/white argument is understandable as a symptom of modern political expression, but the oversimplified choice that if offers does not lead to an appropriate evaluation of such evidence and understanding as we have.

How should we proceed? Wdford (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously we need to ditch the current text as it doesn't represent what Kemp is saying. Maybe something like "After examining ..... Kemp concluded that: sample too small and unrepresentative, no unified population in any case but a number of local ones. can't generalise from one set. The bit about black/white argument. And maybe the 2 conclusions about males/females and predynastic skulls vs OK. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, please also see Kemp's craniometric dendrogram, where he shows the actual clustering [1]. Soupforone (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read this several times. However I get the sense that Kemp is saying that these charts are not reliable, for various reasons. See my summary in the article. I feel that pulling conclusions off the table would be OR, since Kemp himself gave so many caveats? Wdford (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, the passage doesn't quite gel with what Kemp's analysis found. As regards the population affinities of his fossils, he indicates in a later iteration of his work that-- "Dendrogram which shows the relative closeness to or distance from one another of fourteen human populations from Africa and the Mediterranean region. The ‘ancient Egyptian’ group is a pooling of data from twenty-one cemeteries including those at Elephantine and the Late Period cemetery at Giza. The Egypt, Nubia and Africa (‘Ethiopic’) groups form a cluster at some distance from others." Kemp's other dendrogram (Figure 17) was adapted from F.W. Rösing's skeletal analysis, but it contains errors (Rösing uses quite a few different fossil series).

As to the Upper Egyptian and Lower Egyptian intra-population affinities, Kemp at first muses that there may exist a north-south cline. However, once he conducts his actual analysis, he instead finds biological continuity between his ancient Egyptian series but a significant difference between his Lower Egyptian and Palestine series (which points instead to older affinities) [2]. The fossils that are especially close to Palestine apparently belong to Palestinian settlers-- "The total sample comprises 1,487 individuals (but with only 683 skulls preserved) unevenly spread between the 6th and 26th Dynasties, with a major gap in the later New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. A welcome feature is the division of the material into social levels according to the architectural types of the tombs. A thorough analysis points to substantial continuity in the physical characteristics of the population through the whole period studied, although this omits the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods. When the Elephantine results are added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics of populations drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting the idea of a south-north cline (Figure 16b, p. 53). Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. By contrast, an excavated set of around 300 burials from Tell el-Dab‛a in the northeast delta belonging to a group considered to be Palestinian immigrants living in the late Middle Kingdom/Second Intermediate Period (c. 1750–1550 BC) have physical characteristics which group them more closely with ancient populations from the Near East and at a greater distance from those from Elephantine, although male and female characteristics also show differences."

Given this, can you suggest more appropriate wording for the passage? Soupforone (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My take is that these tables are primary sources, and Kemp is a secondary source who is evaluating the primary data. Kemp says clearly (it seems to me) that the data thus far accumulated is unreliable, due to the very small samples and the unrepresentativeness of the available samples, and that we should not attempt to draw conclusions therefrom. He notes that the skulls from Elephantine (which is right on the Nubian "border") are more similar to the Nubian skulls, while those from the north are more similar to northern neighbors. He notes that an "overall" mix would be biased to the Elephantine end of the scale, because there are so very few northern samples available - something to do with the different soils in which they are buried. He notes that skulls from men and women of the same area seem to indicate that the men and women are of different ethnicities - which is presumably impossible. This is born out also by other experts who have stated that skull measurements are not that reliable. I am therefore thinking that if we put the "conclusions" in the article, we would need to layer it with caveats from an expert saying that these tables are not reliable and should be disregarded. With that in mind, how should we proceed? Wdford (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, the italicized text above is what Kemp actually indicates. He does not assert that ancient Egyptian Delta skulls are more similar to Palestinian skulls, which is what the wikitext erroneously claims; those were the crania of actual Palestinian settlers, not native Egyptians. This must be corrected or we are misrepresenting his analysis. As to the skull measurements, most forensic anthropologists acknowledge that they are good approximations for genetic affinities, whereas most social scientists do not believe this. The former have been proven to be correct since it is now known that specific genes control facial skeleton morphology [3]. The Northeast African cluster that Kemp observed in his analysis also parallels the shared Coptic ancestral genetic component that has been detected among modern populations [4], as well as the distribution of the E1b1b-M78 paternal haplogroup. Anyway, this is tangential; what needs to be fixed is the Kemp passage. I recommend the following wording, based on Kemp's own actual analysis (italicized above)-- "Egyptologist Barry Kemp has reviewed the available skulls and skeletal evidence (2005), and sought to evaluate their relationships by conducting his own craniometric analysis. He examined 1,487 ancient Egyptian individuals with 683 crania dating from between the 6th and 26th Dynasties, which were culled from 26 cemeteries, including those at Elephantine and the Late Period Giza necropolis. Kemp found a substantial physical continuity among the analyzed ancient Egyptian fossils. The series had closest affinities with modern Egyptians, followed by certain ancient samples from the Nubia region as well as modern Afroasiatic-speaking populations in the Horn of Africa." Soupforone (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, please also see Rosing's original dendogram - it's quite different from Kemp's adaptation [5]. Soupforone (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Kemp says of the el-Dab’a skulls that they are "considered to be Palestinian immigrants" – on the basis that their skulls are similar to Palestinian skulls. However most Egyptians were immigrants from somewhere – much like most British people today are the descendants of immigrants, rather than from the builders of Stonehenge. Kemp does not commit himself on whether these people immigrated a week before they died, or 200 years before, or 2000 years before etc, but it seems they were not considered to be tourists. Kemp does not say that they were not native Egyptians – in fact Kemp goes to lengths to emphasize that it is not possible to say with confidence who the ancient Egyptians actually were, because they descended from a variety of different original populations – which is exactly my point.

Your point that "specific genes control facial skeleton morphology" is taken, but that is not necessary relevant here – genes are not unique to a race or ethnic population. Many scientists have made the point that an isolated population will develop physiological characteristics over time to suit their environment, and that this will happen regardless of the race of the original people. After all, white and Asian people apparently originated in Africa, but are today quite different-looking to black Africans in some respects. Kemp specifically makes the point that although he is himself considered to be "white", he shares his skeletal characteristics with Indian and North African peoples. Kemp also mentions that the CRANID database positions ancient Egyptians "firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc", because it used a northern population as its base, and that the answer would have been different if it had used a population from Elephantine, which is basically in Nubia.

I think therefore that it is best to honor Kemp’s conclusion, which is that the data thus far accumulated is unreliable, due to the very small samples and the unrepresentativeness of the available samples, and that we should not attempt to draw conclusions therefrom. If you want to load in extracts about tables, we will need to include all Kemp’s data, including the CRANID study, and it will be difficult to keep the context without adding in virtually the entire discourse.

Wdford (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, Kemp indeed indicates that the Tell el-Dab‛a fossils are considered to be Palestinian immigrants, not native Egyptians. The notion that by that he somehow meant native Egyptians is what is actually a leap. Anyway, where does he indicate that the data thus far accumulated is unreliable, due to the very small samples and the unrepresentativeness of the available samples (page #)? Here is the cranial analysis [6]. Soupforone (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, please also note that when Kemp indicates that there is a tendency for the characteristics used for ethnic grouping to differ noticeably between males and females in ancient Egyptian sets of skulls, what he means is that the actual cranial variables/methodology utilized in analysis differ depending on gender. For example, a standard sexing technique used in forensic anthropology is to examine the browridge for robusticity since men usually have more pronounced superorbital ridges than women. He does not mean that the ancient Egyptian male skulls were ethnically very different from the ancient Egyptian female skulls. Soupforone (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, can you also link me to the Lovell analysis? Terrazas et al. found that among populations below the Sahara, the dynastic Egyptians were morphologically closest to other Afroasiatic speakers. Both fossil sets apparently possessed Middle Eastern affinities [7]. Soupforone (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Soupforone. Thank you for the Kemp document – I envy your access to all this info. However I have not been able to open the Terrazas link – it tells me that the page cannot be found.

I have listed below the various items from the Kemp material, with page numbers, which I believe support the paragraph I have added to the article. There is quite a lot of it. We can add some more of them to the article, we can use them for references, or we can leave some of them out. I am not fussed, provided we include a clear statement that Kemp feels the data currently available is insufficient as a basis for conclusions.

1. Page 26 - Throughout its history Egypt took in and absorbed outsiders.
2. Page 46 - At the skeletal level, defined in this broadest of fashions, I share my ‘whiteness’ with peoples of North Africa and India.
3. Page 47 - But there are many reasons to be cautious in evaluating the results of such studies. Unless a population has been isolated to an unusual extent (in a way that did not happen in ancient Egypt), the physical, including facial, features of individuals within a population can be expected to display a degree of variation which can be quite wide and which may overlap with that present in a different population.
4. Page 48 – It could well be that the concept of an indigenous population of the Nile valley has to remain only a theoretical possibility and that it will never be identified owing to the extreme rarity of the survival of human remains from periods prior to the Predynastic (Neolithic) periods.
5. Page 48 - A rare exception is a Late Stone Age cemetery at Gebel Sahaba, in the northern Sudan. … In appearance, these people would not have fallen into an easily identifiable modern category and certainly would not have looked like Predynastic Egyptians or Nubians. Instead they shared features with a population of early Homo sapiens which is found spread across North Africa and into Europe (Cro-Magnon).
6. Page 48 - The importance of appreciating that the ancient Egyptians, even those from the early periods, were the result of tens of thousands of years of micro-evolution and of movement is that it prepares one for the difficulties of drawing clear conclusions from the many detailed studies of human skeletal material (often just the skulls) which have been recovered from ancient cemeteries. The subject is, for one thing, dominated by sampling bias. Partly this is natural, for bones are much better preserved in the dry deserts of the south than in the damper soils of the north. This means that it is much easier to compare Upper Egyptians with Nubians and Sudanese than it is to compare Lower Egyptians with the peoples of Palestine and the Near East, another huge area where preservation is usually poor.
7. Page 49 - The result is that the samples available for study are only a tiny, sad and unrepresentative remnant.
8. Page 49 - As a way of putting the subject into perspective, consider one recent comparative study of Egyptian skulls that uses data taken from thirty-one cemeteries spread across roughly four thousand years, from the Badarian period to the beginning of the Christian era. … So during that four thousand years at least two hundred million people will have died. The 2,886 selected skulls are thus a tiny fraction of 1 per cent. … With microscopically small samples and often poor knowledge of who they represent it is not surprising that progress in writing a population history of ancient Egypt is slow.
9. Page 49 - Consequently it cannot be assumed that the refined method of calculation used in modern police cases works to the same degree with ancient populations. A recurrent and disconcerting tendency for the characteristics used for ethnic grouping to differ noticeably between males and females in ancient Egyptian sets of skulls, as if each half of the population had a different origin, should also be taken as grounds for great caution in interpreting the evidence.
10. Page 51 - There is no single ancient Egyptian population to study, but a diversity of local populations. That does not negate the existence of trends, though as yet it is hazardous to identify any particular one.
11. Page 54 - One might wonder if, by this stage in history, the distinction between the peoples of the eastern delta and those of Palestine apparent in the Predynastic Period (and the subject of the last paragraph) was beginning to break down generally.
12. Page 54 - The most debated studies are those based on groups of early skulls collected during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Predynastic skulls, all from Upper Egypt, appear to be noticeably different in their measurements from an Old Kingdom group from tombs around the pyramids of Giza. This finding prompted one investigator to claim that ‘the pyramid builders were a different race from the people whose descendants they had hitherto been supposed to be’.
13. Page 55 - The lack of a clear answer in a better-than-normal situation underlines the intrinsic difficulties of matching skeletal populations to the cultural groups that we construct from other kinds of evidence.
14. Page 55 - In a database of human cranial variation worldwide (CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc.
15. Page 55 - It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt.
16. Page 56 - Male and female skulls tend to differ not only in size but also in other less obvious ways. These differences become entangled with differences which derive from ethnic origins. This results in different relative placings in dendrograms depending on whether the skulls are male or female. One should be very cautious in reading historical significance into such differences.
17. Page 58 - The building up of the face also requires prior decisions on broad ethnic grouping since facial tissue, for example the configuration of the lips, does not cover the skull in quite the same way worldwide. The technique is not wholly objective.
18. Page 58 - Does DNA research have something to offer? It certainly should have …. As with all such research, believable conclusions require results from a significant number of individuals, who represent a good geographical and chronological spread. At the time of writing those believable conclusions still seem to be a long way off.
19. Page 58 - The Negroid/Caucasoid dividing line is a textbook abstraction, justified perhaps for the broadest of generalizations but for little more. Likewise, the ‘black/white’ argument is understandable as a symptom of modern political expression, and has certainly had a healthy sharpening effect on how the subject is discussed and presented. The over-simplified choice that it offers, however, does not lead to an appropriate evaluation of such evidence and understanding as we have.

I await feedback please? Wdford (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lovell's own paper is here [8], but I can access only the abstract. I note in our wikipedia article that subsequent studies have disagreed wih Lovell's interpretations in that paper. Lovell also wrote an entry for the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, where she cites her own paper - see here: [9], starting on page 277. Wdford (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, thanks. Here is each wiki phrase - some do appear to gel with what Kemp indicates, but others don't.

• Phrase1-- Egyptologist Barry Kemp has reviewed the available skulls and skeletal evidence (2005), and he notes that there are very few samples available for study, despite the civilization having lasted for over 3000 years.
• Kemp-- Archaeological samples tend to be quite small, those from Egypt being no exception. The statistical pooling process is naturally influenced by the degree of variation from one individual to another, and with small samples—perhaps twenty individuals—there is a danger that the presence of a very few people who were a little unusual in their own day will have a disproportionate effect on how the averages appear [p. 47]... If we are looking for changes to an indigenous population we must first define what that indigenous population was. For Egypt this has meant, in practice, the people represented by burials in Predynastic cemeteries, for these are the earliest human remains which have been found in significant quantities... Many tens of thousands of years of human presence had preceded the Predynastic groups but smallness of numbers and a simpler style of life have not left us conveniently dense cemeteries to excavate. A rare exception is a Late Stone Age cemetery at Gebel Sahaba, in the northern Sudan. [p. 48]
• Crux-- Kemp is alluding here to individual sample size rather than to sample availability. There are actually thousands of skulls of ancient Egyptians from various eras available for analysis, including the Predynastic period. It's crania from before the Predynastic era (i.e., from before ancient Egypt) that are rare.
• Phrase2-- He notes that characteristics change over time, and that there is no single ancient Egyptian population to study, but rather a diversity of local populations. For example, he notes that Predynastic skulls from Upper Egypt appear to be noticeably different in their measurements from an Old Kingdom group taken from tombs around the pyramids of Giza.
• Kemp-- There is no single ancient Egyptian population to study, but a diversity of local populations.[p. 51]... Dendrogram which shows the relative closeness to or distance from one another of males in fifty-three human populations from Africa and the Mediterranean region. The program has no geographical or chronological intuition. It is thus reassuring to find expected groups actually coming together, sometimes with a degree of chronological ordering, which suggests evolutionary change. The extent to which the Late Period Giza cemetery is not representative of Egypt as a whole but only of one stage in population change is made clear. [p. 56]
• Crux-- Kemp does note that there was diversity among the ancient Egyptians. However, in his adaptation (Figure 17) of the original Rosing cranial analysis, he points out that the Giza sample is not representative of ancient Egypt in general. Kemp's adapted dendrogram also shows a different clustering pattern from the Rosing original, and he has omitted many samples/branches that Rosing had analysed.
• Phrase3: In his opinion the black/white argument is understandable as a symptom of modern political expression, but the oversimplified choice that if offers does not lead to an appropriate evaluation of such evidence and understanding as we have.
• Kemp-- If one is obliged to reconstruct an ancient Egyptian scene, even to engage modern people to act parts in it, the most honest course is to use the modern population of Egypt as a guide. It will not be exactly right, for the processes responsible for change and variation in the population had another two thousand years to run before today, much more if one’s drama is set when the pyramids were being built. But any other course is likely to be more wrong. The exact mix of characteristics, at its simplest the range of facial types and skin shades, is a piece of micro-genetic history that is now beyond recovery. This does not make the ancient Egyptians any less a people of Africa, for 'black' Africans—by which term is generally meant the descendants of the Bantu—represent only a part of the population of the African continent. The Negroid/Caucasoid dividing line is a textbook abstraction, justified perhaps for the broadest of generalizations but for little more. Likewise, the 'black/white' argument is understandable as a symptom of modern political expression, and has certainly had a healthy sharpening effect on how the subject is discussed and presented. The over-simplified choice that it offers, however, does not lead to an appropriate evaluation of such evidence and understanding as we have. [p. 58]
• Crux-- Kemp does think that the pigmentation argument is an oversimplication and a distraction. He believes this because (1) it is difficult to ascertain complexion from skeletal remains (or at least it was back then; skin pigmentation alleles can and have now actually be gleaned from ancient fossils), and (2) Africa is not just inhabited by Bantu-related peoples. He therefore asserts that modern Egyptians are the closest/next best thing there is to the ancient Egyptians.

With the foregoing noted, perhaps this phrasing would work better-- "Egyptologist Barry Kemp (2005) has reviewed the available skulls and skeletal evidence on the ancient Egyptians. He observes that fossils excavated in Predynastic cemeteries are the earliest human remains in the Egypt area that have been found in substantial quantities. However, skeletons from earlier periods, which would help elucidate the origin of the Predynastic Egyptians, are rare. He notes that characteristics change over time, and that there is no single ancient Egyptian population to study, but rather a diversity of local populations. Kemp argues that the black/white argument, though politically understandable, is an oversimplification that hinders an appropriate evaluation of the scientific data on the ancient Egyptians since it does not take into consideration the difficulty in ascertaining complexion from skeletal remains. It also ignores the fact that Africa is inhabited by many other populations besides Bantu-related ("Negroid") groups. He asserts that in reconstructions of life in ancient Egypt, modern Egyptians would therefore be the most logical and closest approximation to the ancient Egyptians." Soupforone (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, by African lineage, Lovell may actually mean haplogroup. However, it's uncertain without the url; I'll try to access it. Soupforone (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Soupforone. I do not entirely agree with your interpretations above. For example, on page 49, Kemp notes that there are about 2900 skulls available to represent 200,000,000 people who lived over a period of 4,000 years. He calls this “microscopically small samples”. He actually states that “The result is that the samples available for study are only a tiny, sad and unrepresentative remnant.” It is not just the Stone Age burials that are unrepresentative.

While he accepts that the late-period Giza burials are not representative of the entire population over the 4,000 year period, Kemp also specifically says that the lack of Northern remnants generally means that the overall ancient Egyptian samples are biased to the southern (Nubian) area, where the dry sand made preservation more effective (page 48).

On page 49, Kemp says that "A recurrent and disconcerting tendency for the characteristics used for ethnic grouping to differ noticeably between males and females in ancient Egyptian sets of skulls, as if each half of the population had a different origin, should also be taken as grounds for great caution in interpreting the evidence." On page 56, Kemp again says that "Male and female skulls tend to differ not only in size but also in other less obvious ways. These differences become entangled with differences which derive from ethnic origins. This results in different relative placings in dendrograms depending on whether the skulls are male or female. One should be very cautious in reading historical significance into such differences." It seems clear to me from this that Kemp means that the ancient Egyptian male skulls appeared to be ethnically different from the ancient Egyptian female skulls – although I personally can't imagine that they actually were of different races. If you don’t take this into account, it could give rise to incorrect conclusions. I think this is relevant to the article?

I accept all the info in your proposed paragraph, but I feel that you are leaving our some critical stuff, which results in an incorrect overall impression of Kemp’s conclusions. I propose therefore the following paragraph for the article:

Egyptologist Barry Kemp (2005) has reviewed the available skulls and skeletal evidence on the ancient Egyptians. He observes that skeletons from earlier periods, which would help elucidate the origin of the Predynastic Egyptians, are rare, with one of the few examples being bodies recovered from a Late Stone Age cemetery at Gebel Sahaba, in the northern Sudan. Kemp states that these people certainly would not have looked like Predynastic Egyptians or Nubians, but instead they shared features with a population of early Homo sapiens called Cro-Magnon, which are found spread across North Africa and into Europe. He notes also that Predynastic skulls from Upper Egypt appear to be noticeably different in their measurements from an Old Kingdom group from tombs around the pyramids of Giza, and one investigator has consequently claimed that ‘the pyramid builders were a different race from the people whose descendants they had hitherto been supposed to be’.

Kemp notes that there is no single ancient Egyptian population to study, but rather a diversity of local populations. He cautions that the features of individuals within a population can be expected to display a degree of variation which can be quite wide and which may overlap with that present in a different population, that characteristics change over time, and that it is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt.

Kemp notes that the samples available for study are "microscopically small", and "are only a tiny, sad and unrepresentative remnant" of the approximately 200,000,000 people who lived in Egypt over the 4,000 years of that civilization’s history. In particular he notes that these analyses are dominated by sampling bias, in that bones from the northern regions are rare, while bones are much better preserved in the dry deserts of the south (next to Nubia), and that these items thus make up a disproportionate proportion of the available samples.

Kemp argues that the black/white argument, though politically understandable, is an oversimplification that hinders an appropriate evaluation of the scientific data on the ancient Egyptians since it does not take into consideration the difficulty in ascertaining complexion from skeletal remains. It also ignores the fact that Africa is inhabited by many other populations besides Bantu-related ("Negroid") groups. He asserts that in reconstructions of life in ancient Egypt, modern Egyptians would therefore be the most logical and closest approximation to the ancient Egyptians.

Wdford (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, that phrasing works quite well. Soupforone (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have added these issues into the article, as a start point. We can now polish it as we go. Wdford (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. The haplogroup of the late period Egyptian mummy that was recently genotyped should probably be noted. The specimen belonged to the I2 clade [10]. Soupforone (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancient DNA

Ancient Egyptian mummies have been genomically analysed for mtDNA and nuclear DNA. The fossils date from between the Third Intermediate Period and the Roman era. They were found to have similar affinities as modern Egyptians, but apparently with less extraneous gene flow. It's as yet unclear what exact haplogroups they carried [11]. Soupforone (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully they'll publish a report this year which we might be able to use. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The related ancient populations in Nubia have apparently also been analysed for DNA, with the particulars to be announced [12]. Soupforone (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a new (2016) study, published in a scientific research journal and claiming to have produced reliable DNA results. [13] Wdford (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. As expected the ancient Egyptians' (at least in Abusir and during the typed periods) West Eurasian affinities appear to be primarily Basal Eurasian like modern Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in Northeast Africa. Their most frequent maternal lineages are also common in the area, such as the haplogroups T and U (frequent among modern Copts) and M1 and R0 (frequent among Afro-Asiatic speakers elsewhere in the region). Soupforone (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and [14]. Doug Weller talk 05:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if that is the same group, but Nature Communications just published Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, also discussed in the WaPo here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be an actual reliable source. Are we going to include it in the article? Wdford (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ancient, black

Typo.s for whoever can edit: [As late {of} the 1960s, Martin Luther King] should be [As late as the 1960s]. [When pressed..., the {than} current Secretary General] should be [..., the then current Secretary General] [Scholars generally identify Cleopatra ... based {on fact}] should be [based on the fact].

Comments for authors: [anthropologist Susan Anton, the leader of the American team, said the race of the skull was "hard to call"]. Is that even possible? I wouldn’t mind an asterisk or footnote (for the section) stating what is current knowledge - which I imagine is that there is no (physical) difference. Ref59 says not poss: but that’s 3 sections down. (And also said in Population history of Egypt).

Also I suggest citing a year in this section: the refs say 2005 and 2010 but it reads* like it (the Anton skull recreation) was c1980 - *coming just after Diop bit. Was she part of The Discovery docco,2002?

Google took me to this page with the Q: were ancient Egyptians black? Since this page is about the controversy I’m guessing you’ll say it’s out of the scope of this page to say yes or no. It is (more or less) answered at [It is now largely agreed that Dynastic Egyptians were indigenous to the Nile area] but that’s a fair way in, and at that stage (of the article) the reader (me especially) doesn’t know if that’s black or not. Any chance of a page to answer that Q? * In particular "Ancient" - ie the pyramid builders of 2600BC - not Rameses or Tut of 1300BC, and esp not Cleopatra of 60BC? AND: What about the Hyksos? Surely they’re part of the debate, and surely they (and the Canaanites) changed the population physically.

 *The (see instead) "Population history of Egypt", is more matched to the Q: but still not well matched - nor concise! Perhaps the new page could be about whether they were "African-looking" rather than "black". 

120.16.195.139 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)MBGoold

Gourdine et al needs rewording

"Although there are different interpretations of these ancient DNA results, as Gourdine et al. remind that "many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples predate Islam and are abundant in Africa." " Where does the "although...." come from? And "remind" doesn't seem appropriate in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Request

It would be great if someone could refer to population sizes at any given point. The closes we get in this article is that over 4000 years of Egyptian civilization, there is estimated to have lived 200,000,000 people in Egypt, which is a data point of little value. Monkeytheboy (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New request

Some of the terms used to describe race in this article are completely outdated and my be offensive even if referenced verbatim. The term “negroid”, “super-negroid”, etc. Can these references be updated for the modern era with more appropriate terminology or perhaps more current articles referenced that my contain many more years of research behind them? DcHue (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for appropriate sources? You can suggest specific changes here, or make them yourself, citing reliable sources. - Donald Albury 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Kanya Godde

The Crawford paper is not a reliable source.

Re the Godde source, you are cherry-picking from a presentation to a conference in 2017.

Godde published her findings officially in 2018, together with Richard Jantz, in the scientific journal Human Biology (Vol. 89, No. 4 (Fall 2017), pp. 255-279). See here [15] The paper was called "Evaluating Nubian Population Structure from Cranial Nonmetric Traits: Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, and Population History of the Nubian Nile Valley".

To quote from the abstract: "In this study, we took a population genetics approach to modeling Nubian biological relationships in an effort to describe how an accumulation of events formed Nubian population structure. A variety of Nubian samples were utilized, spanning the Mesolithic-Christian time periods and geographically from just above the first through the third cataracts. … Variation was high among these groups, indicating an intricate pattern of relationships in their population history where similar levels of gene flow probably stemmed from extensive cultural contact with Egypt and other populations in a variety of contexts. ... Traditional modeling of spatial-temporal patterning was not successful, which may be attributed to the nonlinear, loose clustering of Nubian groups by site. Collectively, the archaeological, biological, and environmental evidence supports the ideas of multiple populations living in Lower Nubia during the Paleolithic and/or a new population entering the area and shaping Nubian population structure."

That is completely different to the lines you cherry-picked, is it not? Wdford (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Crawford paper is a reliable paper, it is a peer-reviewed publication. He cites Goode's 2020 study in his journal if you bother to read his publication. I believe you are citing a different study featuring Godde. I have include Keith's citation of her work as a second source. I am no longer making further comments and other users can make further edits due to the clear, bias in this article and misrepresenation of genetic studies to suggest that Ancient Egypt did not emerge from a Black African context in the Sahara and Sudanic regions.19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser4020 (talk • contribs)

Peer reviewed is never enough. Crawford doesn’t have the qualifications needed to show he’s an expert. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV and WP:V

Once again, a certain editor is attempting to insert a racial POV into an article concerning Ancient Egypt. The current attempts include clogging this article with material which he/she is using to create an impression of a racial conclusion. Despite making a huge fuss over DNA studies (which did not support his/her POV) on the grounds that the samples were not representative of the whole of Egypt over the whole of time, this editor is happy to cite individual sources which are even less representative, but which coincidentally do support his/her POV. In addition, a basic name-search finds that Keita is already mentioned 29 times in this article as it stands.

It was long since agreed that this article should only include material which is reliably representative of the actual Egyptian population, and not to include individual studies which are based on small and non-representative samples, or opinions which are at odds with the mainstream scholarship. A point has now been reached where a decision needs to be made on the way forward, and the text needs to be cleaned up accordingly.

Please contribute to this discussion, and help to achieve a consensus. Wdford 17:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This same user who made bigoted and accusatory statements about "playing the race card" (see talk page: Ancient Egyptian race controversy) and disputed the historic fact that early Egyptologists such as Petrie had racialist, eugenic views during the colonial era is lecturing others on neutrality ?.

I originally added a sub-section requesting to include the article from Mekota and Vermehren (2005) before including it. I cited various authoritative scholars with peer-reviewed publications. I did not input original research but the views and conclusion of cited authors which include Keita, Stuart Tyson Smith, Toby Wilkinson, Bruce Trigger, Kanya Godde, Robert Morkot, Maria Gatto etc. None of the publications cited are unreliable or fringe. You simply don't like their conclusions which presents an obvious and conclusive judgement.

I never disputed the inclusion of DNA studies but the fact they should not be regarded as conclusive and caution should be highlighted to users on the methodological, sampling bias. I was in the process of adding further content i.e. Rameses II study to add neutrality and issues with traditional anthropological approach i.e. Zakrzewski (2020) and Barry Kemp on CRANID methodological issue before the new user removed the sub-section.'

There is no issue with Keita. He is an authoritative and reliable source who has produced an extensive body of work across decades. You simply dislike his conclusions that highlight the biological affinities between ancient Egyptians and other African populations.

All of the academics cited are mainstream scholars. Specify which author is a fringe or incorrect in the article page ?. It seems you want to use the proposed revisions to remove the conclusions/studies of authors that do not fit with your POV. The issue is that most of the historical, studies have been based on limited samples and only recent evidence has incorporated a larger sample size. Hence, why this page is titled the "Population History of Egypt" and incorporates studies from previous decades. I agreed that the sub-section should be dropped but the current page does not need to be revised. Perhaps, the sub-sections should be split out i.e craniometric studies on ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians would be a more sensible.WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

All the studies and opinions are based on very limited samples, with inherent methodological and sampling bias. Any study that says body shapes from Egypt and Nubia are similar, without also including West Asian samples, is inherently misleading - whether or not deliberately. We have conclusions from experts saying that cranial measurements and limb ratios are evidence of adaptations to climate not evidence of racial affinity, but still the article is being loaded with studies on cranial measurements and limb ratios - with no warnings added. We have studies with conflicting conclusions, but they have been scattered about so that the reader doesn't see them all in context. And we have Keita leaping in over decades to object to any study which contradicts his own views. We cannot have some studies portrayed as "not representative" and others portrayed as "representative" based on pushing a particular POV. A decision is thus needed on whether we add a standard warning to users after every study, or we take a different approach on studies? We need consistency here, otherwise it is not neutral. Wdford (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the point on methodological bias and need for consistency is crucial. However, some of the studies have included West Asian samples i.e. Godde (2020) and Patricia Smith still made similar conclusions. Some of the recent studies have incorporated non-metric/evolutioanry approach to better identify the genetic traits regardless of the environmental factors (This needs to be acknowledged). I do agree that warnings should be included for both cranial studies and DNA studies. Specify where and how Keita has contradicted himself ?. He simply criticises the approaches of other studies, in essence what we have echoed in this discussion. I have never stated that a specific study is representative as I mentioned beforehand all past studies have relied on limited samples. However, the sources or statements should not be removed as all the current authors are reliable. Rather, a notice of caution should be applied to all of them. Brian Kemp makes a good criticism of craniometric (CRANID) methodology which could be discussed in further detail.WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I will check the various sources, and reword to ensure neutrality. I never said that Keita has contradicted himself, I said that Keita objects to any study which contradicts his own views. However he doesn't raise any objection to studies which support his views, even when they are even more non-representative. A standard caution could perhaps be worked out, and applied to all of them. Consistency would be important. Wdford (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, rewording or an application of standard caution on the scientific studies (crania studies, DNA) will be sufficient. Although, other users such as myself will make a second review to ensure these changes are truly neutral and consistent.WikiUser4020 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Afrocentric Vandalism

Appears to be one or more people simply adding the term Sub Saharan African in place of Eurasian or North African, despite the article AND the references quoted stating the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.241.192 (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Inclusion of Mekota and Vermehren (2005) Article

I'm looking at where this article from Mekota and Vermehren (2005) that examined the skin cells of Egyptian nobles from Thebes, Upper Egypt can be included in the sub-sections ?. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7930960_Determination_of_optimal_rehydration_fixation_and_staining_methods_for_histological_and_immunohistochemical_analysis_of_mummified_soft_tissues — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser4020 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Stephen Quirke

The article featuring Stephen Quirke is a non-reliable source. It is rather a newspaper and Quirke is not a scientific specialist. I removed this source a few months ago but Doug Weller re-instated it. Look at the editing history.

11:41, 29 January 2022‎ Doug Weller talk contribs‎ 41,419 bytes +867‎ Undid revision 1068499915 by WikiUser4020 (talk) of course it isn't, but we do allow comment by experts in the field that aren't in peer reviewed publicans, and Quirke is very much an expert undo

Those were Doug Weller's comments from January. Is this not hypocritical considering the Keita source is excluded from the same article, despite being an expert ?. Arguably, more scientific relevance to the academic criticism than Quirke as he is a biological anthropologist.WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

How many times are you going to show lack of good faith and make personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 12:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, missed your edit summary. When did "allow" start meaning "insisted"? Doug Weller talk 12:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not making insults. I am suggesting this seems like a double-standard or hypocritical to exclude one source based on the criteria of peer review and include another ?. Both Keita and Quirke are experts yet only one of them is included in the article. I originally removed the article with an explanation that the source was not a peer reviewed publication and you in turn (1) reverted my edit and (2) justified this decision with the explanation above. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Quirke's comment adds nothing to this point, and it was probably part of a different issue originally. We should probably just remove it. The use of the word "insisted" was clearly inappropriate, and part of a track record of contentious statements. Wdford (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Your track records includes making bigoted and false accusations of "playing the race card". It is a historical fact that Egyptology emerged from the colonial context and biased attitudes were widespread among major Egyptologists at the time. Bias in attitudes and interpretation of evidence have also been documentated by authoritative figures such as Keita, Smith and Barry Kemp. Your track record speaks for itself. I was suggesting both of them be removed and that was my original action (back in January). WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree to the removal of Quirke. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Biogeographic origin based on cultural data

Several issues here.

• Recently this section has bloated into a list of opinions about cultural affinities. It is accepted that cultural affinities do not necessarily identify with particular populations, as goods and practices are adopted by other populations through trade or other contact. Today they drink Coke in Ethiopia, they eat curry in London, and Nike and Apple products are everywhere. All of the major religions have spread all over the world, regardless of ethnicity. Since it is recognized that cultural affinities do NOT indicate "biogeographic origin", this section needs to be more correctly named. I suggest "Cultural affinities with other populations"?
• Comments about representations in artworks are now starting to appear as well. Individual perceptions about appearances in artworks are highly subjective, and are not an indication of population history. This has been argued at length in related articles, and should not be repeated here.
• Since cultural affinities do NOT indicate population history, the "cultural affinities" section is less notable than the science material. It should be at the bottom of the article, if included at all.
• Language is a better indication of population history, since people readily learn additional languages but do not readily abandon their own mother tongues. This section is thus more notable, and should be given more prominence.

Comments please on these proposals? Wdford (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford

1.The section is not bloated. That is your subjective judgement. All of those opinions are from established academics that discuss archaeological and the biogeographical data. Do you have supporting evidence from scholars to make that assertion that "culltural affinities do not indicate biogeographic origin" ?. That sub-section title has been listed in the article for over a decade. You have presented a supeficial example of modern, globalised consumerism and conflated it with the discipline of historical anthropology. Cultural practices which are shared by specific populations can indicate a common substratum and ancestral origins. Social mobility would have been far more limited and the extent of trade would has not been completely determined in this context. Also, not all major religions have spread all over the world. In fact, Zoroastrianism, South American religions were confined to their geographical landscape or have become extinct.

2. The sources discussing representation of other ethnic groups can be featured as evidence of intermixing with neighbouring populations in Egypt and hence does have relevance to this article. In fact, this is outlined in the introductory sentence that Egypt was a cultural highway and featured demographic inflow from other groups.

3. You have not provided any supporting academic evidence for this. Cultural affinities are cited as a form of anthropological evidence hence its inclusion within this article page. Also, archaeological evidence is widely cited in that sub-section which demonstrates migration and populations flows.

4. The language is a form of anthropological evidence along with cultural practices. It has been recently expanded upon with additional sources. The discipline of anthropology is a scientific form of evidence. In fact, it is described as such in the main wiki page Anthropology

5. This article page does not only exclusively examine the demographic history of ancient egypt. In fact, it is cited in the AE race controversy article page that "For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt and DNA history of Egypt". Hence, discussion can include both the demographic history of population and the scientific evidence that relates to the ethnicity/origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Thus, the anthropological evidence is perfectly appropripate for this article.

I strongly disagree with all of the propositions above. The article should feature further evidence in the sub-sections (craniometric studies, limb proportions and language section) to have more developed content. This has been developing over the past few months but could be developed further. I think I can split the cultural and archaeological data into separate sub-sections as a compromise. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As the question of the origins of the Egyptians is controversial and has been the subject of contradictory claims, we have to be very careful to use only the highest quality sources, to not go beyond the most solid evidence in stating conclusions, and to present a neutral balance, science based, balance in the types of evidence used. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it is appropriate to discuss what information should be presented in this article, and with what emphasis. - Donald Albury 20:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's bloated. So is the section Anthropometric indicators. And Craniofacial criteria? A large section based on some dubious science. Anthropometry is worth reading. And Forensic anthropology#Determination of ancestry. We need to trim these sections to use only the highest quality sources as Donald says and to make sure NPOV is met within the sections. It's very unfortunate that our article on Anthropology makes the statement in Wikivoice that it's a scientific discipline as that statement is highly disputed. See [16], [17] and [18] for example. I like the conclusion at the latter link, "The inescapable conclusion is that anthropology as a research field, perhaps just as acutely as any other field, stands at the intersection of the humanities and science. Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other, sometimes, and maybe at the best of times, it's both." There is archaeological evidence about cultural affinities backing what User:Wdford says. But of course there are exceptions and certainly debates over the issues. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I will trim down the suggested sections. Anthropmetry references early tools. Craniometry has limitations as with DNA studies, hence our previous discussion in the AE race controversy pages. However, expand on your final point on "archaoelogical evidence about cultural affinities backing what Wdford says". At the same time, there is archaeological evidence which shows paths of population flow and migration during the Pre dynastic era and this correlates with the shared cultural links with neighbouring populations. Cite actual scholars or studies in reference to this point ?. I think a compromise position can be reached with a reduction in the content. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no separating the bloated cultural data section into two sections - the entire article is based on archaeology, including obviously the skeletons. Skull and limb sizes are an adaptation to climate, so in a time before air-conditioning, neighboring populations that developed alongside each other will obviously look similar. The mere fact that Gatto etc can discuss that Nubian and Egyptian data "had affinities", indicates that they were not the same - if they were the same people, then the experts would not be able to tell them apart? You deleted the parts of Kemp where he points out that studying skeletons and skulls is not a reliable way to determine anything - so I trimmed it in a more neutral manner. More trimming is needed throughout. The only "evidence" which can really "prove" population migrations, is DNA. The archaeological "cultural" evidence shows only that goods were traded and adopted between neighboring populations - all points on this should be summarized into a single paragraph, with the appropriate caveats for neutrality. "Biogeographic origin based on cultural data" is not a thing. Wdford (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford The issue of craniometric studies has been addressed beforehand as I stated that recent studies have incorporated a non-metric methodology for controlled settings to identify genetic loci, irrespective of environmental factors. Arguably, this should be featured in the article page. Also, the authors cited discuss cultural commonalities between predynastic Egyptian populations and neighbouring populations in relation to their origin and population flow. An example can be seen with Vogel, he refers the geographical landscape and population movement during the Green Sahara period which established the material culture of the predynastic Egyptians. Yurco states that Nubian and Egyptians were closest related among populations (compared to other foreign populations such as Libyans, Mediterraneans and Middle Eastern groups). Wilkinson, Keita, Smith, Ehret, Vogel all echo this sentiment that the pre-dyanstic Egyptians emerged from a Saharan-Sudanic context. I summarised Kemp as his sentence was the most bloated. Archaeological evidence shows migratory flows and population movements such as the direction of early predynastic Egyptian movements and where the oldest evidence of their material culture derives from. You state only "DNA can prove population migrations" but where are your supporting references ?. I have asked this beforehand. I have cited various scholars and none of them would make that claim. Rather, they would argue that all sources of evidence need to be discussed in conjunction for a comprehensive picture. Stuart Smith references this that material culture cannot be dismissed as it shows shared, ancestral relations between groups extending into the Saharan wet phase in the continent. All of the evidence is presented in a neutral tone, it is just a fact that various scholars share the view that the origins of Egypt emerged from the Saharan-Sudanic region. "Biogeographic origin based on cultural data" has been that title for the past decade. Why did you not raise this issue beforehand ?. The cultural data does not only indicate "trade/goods flow", in fact specific practices of Egyptian culture have been traced to specific groups in the north-east Africa and not common in other locations such as west asia as Stuart Smith, Henri Frankfort and Frank Yurco have noted. The fact only these groups share these customs with Egyptians and not other populations in the world would suggest that there is a common, ancestral foundation. This correlates with the archaeological evidence which shows the direction of population flow from the Saharan interior, region towards the Nile Valley.WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The science agrees that most of the original inhabitants came into the Nile Valley from the Sahara and the Levant, post the Middle Holocene period. "Most closely resemble" does NOT mean "exactly the same", and the surviving human remains show that northern Sahara people were physically different to southern Sahara people - far less sub-Saharan people. The experts accept that the surviving evidence is insufficient to draw lines on a map, and that there was a lot of heterogeneity from cemetery to cemetery.

People actually did travel extensively in those days. Predynastic tombs contained lapis from Afghanistan, among other things. There were predynastic Egyptian colonies in Palestine, whose civilization was building cities 11,000 years ago.

The fact that Nubians were geographically the closest to Egyptians but had a completely different language, reveals that their "cultural ancestry" was not really very close. There is still dispute about where the Egyptian language arose and travelled, and in which directions, but there is no dispute that the Nubians on their doorstep had a completely different language, and that Nubia stands between Egypt and the rest of Sudan.

There is also much proof of "cultural entanglements", which implies exchange of ideas, cultural practices, goods and fashions etc. The mere fact that two cultures "entangled" indicates that they were not a single common culture to begin with. This "entangling" certainly would have resulted in some cases of inter-marriage as well, but the extent thereof is unknown.

This much is solid, and it all should be recorded in the article, with general caveats about small sample sizes etc. Beyond that, attempts to create a perception of a single homogenous population from Sudan into Egypt are not supported by the mainstream science.

In particular, due to the contentious nature of the subject matter, we should avoid examples which note one particular carving or burial and then extrapolate that it "may possibly supposedly perhaps indicate" something totally novel. This article should only record the expert consensus, and in proper context. Where consensus does not yet exist, we should say so, and leave it at that - not bloat the article with a range of individual suggestions and contested hypotheses.

If you want to include representations in art, then the Egyptians went to a lot of trouble to portray themselves looking very different to the Nubians in particular.

If you have finished "trimming", I will reword the material as per the expert consensus, and then we can discuss perhaps adding extras. Agreed? Wdford (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford"Closely resemble" shows biological relationships between Egyptian and the specific populations as attested in various genetic and morphological studies (Keita 1992, Krings et al. 1999, Lovell 1999, Williams 1999, Lucotte 2004, Stevanovitch 2004). This clearly shows an ancestral foundation between the groups. However, differences in affinities could be due to dietary changes or admixture depending on the particular period examined.

All the scholars cited clearly state that the Upper Egypt derived from the interior Saharan i.e. southerly regions which included Sub-Saharan communities which extended from the continent. Vogel and Ehret are very explicit in their description. Northern Sahara would have applied to the coastal regions and had closer geographical proximity to the Lower Egyptian region. Also, Sub-Saharan communities have been shown to be present in the northern regions as seen with the Uan Muhuggiag site and the Haratin communities which are viewed as descendants of the original Saharan communities. (Keita 1981; 1993, Brooks 2007, Giuffra 2010) However, it is a widely accepted fact that Upper Egypt had closer geographical, biological and cultural ties with the southern regions and the early population flow derived from this region. That is a biogeographical fact.

Predynatic tombs feature a range of influences and it is highly dependent on the region and time period. However, the 1st dynasty Abydos tombs featured arrows and obisdan from Ethiopia. Keita (1992) conducted analysis on the morpohological remains and stated that they had closest affinities with Nubians as other scholars have noted in relation to the north-south gradient. The oldest archaeological evidence of royal iconography is found in Aswan, the borderland with Sudan. Gatto has shown that the evidence for population settlements are more older in Nubia than Egypt, although this might be due to issues with dating. Ehret has stated that several elements of Egyptian agriculture derived from Sudan between 7500-6000 BC.

Colonization in Nubia and the Near East have been noted among scholars to be small-scale and restricted to key trading/military posts.

"There is also much proof of "cultural entanglements", which implies exchange of ideas, cultural practices, goods and fashions etc". Provide evidence on this notion and academics which argue that the cultural evidence does not correspond with population movement. I have cited several authoritative scholars that have stated that the Egyptian culture derived from the movement of predynastic populations from the Sudan and areas south of the Sahara during the Green Sahara period. This is especially pertinent to Upper Egypt which was closest in geographical proximity to those locations.

"Beyond that, attempts to create a perception of a single homogenous population from Sudan into Egypt are not supported by the mainstream science". The scientific studies have show heterogeneity in AE on a north to south gradient. It has been established that Upper Egypt shared close, biological affinities with the populations in Nubia and other north-eastern populations (Lovell 1999). Upper Egypt was the origin of the earliest pharaohs along with dynasties 11, 12, 17 and 18.

The Ancient Egyptian language was spoken in both Egypt and Northern Nubia. Cushitic language which is the same Afro-Asiatic language family as Ancient Egyptian is spoken in the Sudan and other north-eastern regions. I have stated this in another thread. Also, differences in language would not mean the populations have a different ethnicity. Finnish populations in Europe do not speak Indo-European language, which is the dominant language family in Europe. Similarly, Japonic and Chinese languages are classified in different language groups. Yet, we would not have a "controversial" debate on their ethnicities and population origin.

Discussion on iconographic representation are featured in the AE race controversy. Many scholars have challenged the notion that Egypt distinguished Nubians based on "race-based" classifications. In fact, iconographic evidence shows Nubians presented both in jet-back and reddish-brown colours that are the same as Egyptians. Also, Yurco (1989) argued that these dark-skin imagery were a in-built diverse represenation of indigenous, African phenotypes and this showed political but not "racial" differences with Nubians.

"This article should only record the expert consensus, and in proper context. Where consensus does not yet exist, we should say so, and leave it at that". You need to be very specific on this point and provide examples of what the expert consensus is ?. The consensus changes over time. Also, the mainstream authors featured in AE race controversy have differing views, i.e. Wilkinson, Keita, Smith, Ehret, and Lovell would differ from Redford, Montellano, Mertz and Bard and arguably make contradictory points. In fact, it is outlined in the AE sub-section on modern scholarship: "Modern scholars who have studied ancient Egyptian culture and population history have responded to the controversy over the race of the ancient Egyptians in various ways".

However, what was agreed is that the article should only feature the highest quality sources, which I have largely included such as Yurco, Vogel, Smith, Ehret, Wilkinson and Gatto.I have finished trimming and we can discuss possible extra additions. WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your "preferred" sources have their opinions, but there does not seem to be any mainstream consensus on many of these issues. It's interesting how you define "highest quality sources" – for example, how does Vogel outrank Kemp?

There seems to be consensus that Upper Egypt had closer geographical, biological and cultural ties with Nubia, which is right next door, although the authorities do not all agree that Upper Egypt derived from regions which included Sub-Saharan communities.

There seems to be consensus on the people moving into the Nile Valley from the Sahara, but on the Egyptian part of the Valley the people came from the northern Sahara, not from areas south of the Sahara. There seems to be consensus on people coming in from the neighboring Levant at the same time, and because of the same climatic pressures.

There seems to be consensus on the north-south gradient. However Lovell wrote that the clinal pattern from south to north may be explained by natural selection as well as gene flow between neighboring populations. She also wrote that gene flow between Egypt and Syro-Palestine was very likely. Redford wrote that the old notion of waves of "races" flowing up the Nile Valley, effecting cultural change and improvement, is now known to be as erroneous as it was simplistic.

"Cultural entanglements" has been discussed at great length already, at the Ancient Egypt race controversy talk page, and this was Gatto's baby – which you introduced to this article, and then backed away from. However Gatto stated that no A-Group campsites have been found in Upper Egypt except for one at Armant, and wrote that "to what extent and in what way Egypt interacted with the African world still remains to be clarified", that the race-based theory is irrelevant, and that cultural identities do not necessarily match or relate to race. Gatto also stated that the Badarian lithic technology is different to the Nubian cultural tradition. You then "trimmed" Gatto from the article, along with your attempts to selectively silence Kemp. As you know, this is called "cherry picking".

You again avoid the big language point, which we cannot ignore – for all the claimed "cultural affinities" and "biological affinities" etc pointing to "entanglements" with Nubia, still they had a vastly different mother tongue, and thus they do NOT have a common ancestry. Clearly the people who flowed into Egypt from the northern Sahara were not the same as the people who flowed into Nubia from the southern Sahara.

After all your efforts to bloat the article with examples of Nubian cultural connections, the language problem is forcing you to resort once again to promoting the Cushites. Similarities between the Egyptian language and the Cushites is no different to similarities between the Egyptian language and the Semites. And as the "origin" section of the article clearly states, there is no consensus on half the material currently in the language section. You therefore cannot state that the language flowed from Cush to Egypt, any more than we can state that the language flowed from Egypt to Cush.

Of course language does not indicate ethnicity – look how many black people and white people all speak English today as a home language. Culture does not indicate ethnicity either. But a difference in mother tongue is a strong indication of a difference in ancestral culture, as you know.

Regarding iconographic representation, there is again no consensus, although only Egyptian women are shown as pale beige, and only Nubian women are shown as black.

Regarding Nubia, there is no consensus that the available evidence "clearly shows an ancestral foundation between the groups". The noted affinities and resemblances could be due to evolving in a similar climate, with some gene flow across different ancestral groups due to inter-marriage between neighboring populations, or with traders or mercenaries.

Uan Muhuggiag and the Haratin communities are very far away from Egypt, so this is SYNTH.

Predynatic tombs featured obsidian from Ethiopia, but also lapis from Afghanistan and pottery from Palestine. Predynatic tombs also featured cultural material from Elam, in Mesopotamia.

Although there is no consensus on half the material currently in the language section, you continue to bloat the article with examples where "other scholars have argued". Only scholarly consensus should be recorded here – this is an encyclopedia, not a campus blog.

Wdford (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford You haven't cited any sources for any of the assertions made. I have asked this repeatedly and secondarily stop with the suggestions of bad faith such as "preferred", "selectively silence" and SYNTH, otherwise I will raise this as an issue. Any constructive, exchange of debate must be substantiated with supporting evidence and not accusatory, inflammatory language.

1) I did not state anywhere that Vogel ranks higher than Kemp. Vogel is an anthropologist and editor of the Encyclopedia of Sub-Saharan Africa whereas Kemp is an Egyptologist. They have a focus on different disciplines but are authoritative sources.

2)Those are not "preferred sources", they are all mainstream, authoritative sources cited and many of them are featured on the AE race controversy article page i.e. Yurco, Smith, Keita, Lovell and Wilkinson. Essentially, all of them are among the highest rated sources. I even cited Mary Lefkowitz, a noted critic of African-centred studies who states that the "recent evidence on skeletons and DNA [which] suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North". Are you saying that Leftkowitz, Wilkinson, Smith, Ehret, Keita, Lovell, Vogel, Yurco etc are all wrong this point and are fringe scholars who do not reflect the mainstream consensus ?.

3)"Although the authorities do not all agree that Upper Egypt derived from regions which included Sub-Saharan communities.There seems to be consensus on the people moving into the Nile Valley from the Sahara, but on the Egyptian part of the Valley the people came from the northern Sahara, not from areas south of the Sahara". This is factually false, Christopher Ehret, Keita, Tyson Smith, Vogel all state (as already listed in quotations in the Population History of Egypt) that the predynastic origins stemmed from migrations in the Sudan and Southern Sahara. These are the mainstream experts and the current consensus is that the origins of the migratory flow derived from these regions.

4)"There seems to be consensus on the people moving into the Nile Valley from the Sahara, but on the Egyptian part of the Valley the people came from the northern Sahara, not from areas south of the Sahara". You have not provided any academic evidence for this, and it appears to be a notion you have personally suggested. Actually, provide actual academic evidence stating that the consensus is movement derived solely from the northern Sahara and not Eastern or central Sahara. The Eastern Sahara region encompasses Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea. All the authoritative sources state that the pre-dynastic Egyptians, especially in Upper Egypt derived from the southerly regions and had close biological and cultural affinities with those regions.

5) You have quoted Lovell (1999) who makes the exact point I made earlier, that "In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas" but acknowledges a north-south gradient with gene flow from other regions in the Levant. I made this point in the previous post, there is no need to re-iterate it.

6) Redford's discussion was in the context of the old, racialist Dynastic and Hamitic migration theories of Northern invasion outside of the continent and displacing indigenous, African populations. However, there is no dispute about movement within the indigenous landscape and continuity. Although, Redford himself has been criticised by sources I have cited in past posts.

7) "Cultural entanglements have been discussed at great length". Unfortunately, you have not provided any sources for this point despite my repeated requests for this information. The discussion has remained static and circular as you keep re-iterating that no culture does not correspond with population history or migratory movements. I have cited established scholars that explicitly state that this is the case that early population migrations corresponded with the cultural development and evolution of pharaonic Egypt. Cite sources as requested, otherwise skip the point and focus on areas of agreement for article revision.

8) "Promoting the Cushities". Again with the accusatory language, these are all suggestions of bad faith. I am not promoting any group, however providing further context. All of this information has been omitted or left out, which does not provide a full picture of the historical context. "You therefore cannot state that the language flowed from Cush to Egypt, any more than we can state that the language flowed from Egypt to Cush". I did not state this, however you kept repeating that Nubians and Egyptians spoke different language and hence were cultural distinct. I have now provided direct evidence that Afro-Asiatic languages i.e. Cushitic language was spoken in parts of Nubia, (Northern Sudan) and corrected this misconception "they had a vastly different mother tongue, and thus they do NOT have a common ancestry". There is no consensus on the specific location, however many of the scholars believe an African origin is more likely than an Asian origin due to the fact that a majority of the Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken within the continent and the high level of diversity of lanaguages spoken in the Horn of Africa region.

9) There is no consensus on iconography. "although only Egyptian women are shown as pale beige, and only Nubian women are shown as black". That is factually incorrect, Egyptian royal consorts and rulers were depicted as black to mark deification and Nubians were represented as reddish brown in Egyptian and Nubian temple representations. There is agreement that colours were highly symbolic.

10) Regarding Nubia, there is no consensus that the available evidence "clearly shows an ancestral foundation between the groups". This factually wrong, you cannot continue invoke the words "no consensus" without any supporting evidence. There is genetic, anthropological, historical, archaeological evidence from many scholars on this point. David Wengrow, Michael Dee, Sarah Foster, Alice Stevenson and Christopher Ramsay (2014) cites that the "The African origins of Egyptian civilisation lie in an important cultural horizon, the ‘primary pastoral community’, which emerged in both the Egyptian and Sudanese parts of the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC".

11) Gatto states "that cultural identities do not necessarily match or relate to race" this does not mean there is no relationship or these factors do not correlate. I reduced her content because it was the most largest paragraph in that sub-section. Gatto also notes the cultural similarities between the pre-dynastic communities in Sudan and Egypt and concludes that Nubia is Egypt's "African ancestor". She also provides evidence in a separate study cited the article that Nubian Neolithic population settlements were older than Egyptian, although the lack (or very little) evidence might due to issues of site preservation.

12) I condensed Kemp again because he had the largest paragraph. In fact, the pre-existing sentence did not fully capture the extent of his statements. He notes in the actual source ( I have actually bothered to read it) that the Cranid methodology is flawed and specific studies have been unrepresentative for also not incorporating the southern regions i.e. Aswan which would group more with other African populations in the south. This echoes Keita's point on selective sampling. I could have added that content in but there is so much overwhelming evidence across the fields that it does not warrant the additional content.

13) "Uan Muhuggiag and the Haratin communities are very far away from Egypt, so this is SYNTH", NO, you brought up the the point that Northern Saharan populations were distinct from Southern Saharan groups and I provided countervailing evidence in regards to the specific issue. It is a widely accepted fact that the African populations traversed across the continent during the Green Sahara period as Smith (2018) and Vogel (1997) have stated.

14) "Predynatic tombs featured obsidian from Ethiopia, but also lapis from Afghanistan and pottery from Palestine. Predynatic tombs also featured cultural material from Elam, in Mesopotamia". You need to specify your point, I was referring to the 1st dynastic tombs in Abydos that featured obisdian from Ethiopia and were morpologically determined by Keita to have strong affinities with Kushites. You really need to provide evidence on your points, otherwise the discussions will go nowhere. Lovell also provided amorpological evidence that rulers from pre-dynastic era in Naqada were more closely related to groups in Northern Nubia than Egypt.

15)"Although there is no consensus on half the material currently in the language section, you continue to bloat the article with examples where "other scholars have argued". How, has the section been bloated ?. You stated it yourself that the language section should take priority. I have included a single sentence which just states that Afro-Asiatic languages were spoken in Lower Nubia. The language section has the least content.

There is no point repeating this back and forth, especially if 1) you do not provide any supporting academic evidence and 2) still do not specify on what the consensus is and dispute the statements of mainstream authors already cited including Wilkinson, Wengrow, Smith, Keita, Lovell, Yurco, Vogel, Ehret, Leftkowitz, most of whom are already featured in the AE race controversy page. Overall, unless you can provide any academic evidence and specific dates then this discussion is not centred on actual facts but on personal non-specialist views. I will not respond to further assertions on this.

Essentially, just proceed with your rewrite and I'll review it. Following this, I will propose additional sources that could be included subject to consensus agreement. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Cushitic language

Where was that copied from? And why are 4 of the 5 sources the same person? Doug Weller talk 18:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I have deleted some of the sources of that singular source and the sources were imported from the Lower Nubia article. There are other sources that support this view. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you check them? Doug Weller talk 19:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug WellerYes, of course as with all the authors I have cited in the past across the various fields in archaeology, anthropology, egyptology and linguistics. I cross-check the content and publication date. You can double-check the references and make further suggestions. However, the sources are credible and the information provided is accessible. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

And you couldn’t fix the dead link? Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug WellerCould you specify which link ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

On phenotype in iconography and biogeographical clusters

@WikiUser4020 To weigh in on phenotype in iconography, the assessment of Yurco (1989) which was referenced in the above section is accurate and the source does state that there are many instances in which Ancient Egyptians are depicted realistically, in some instances with strong Nubian features. Symbolism in iconography is a false dichotomy (representations can be both symbolic and realistic), as are instances of artistic canon (artistic canon representations can exist along with realistic representations). It seems very reasonable to recognize iconography as valuable in the context of the present page.

To weigh in on comments regarding self-identified geographical ancestry (or the concept of "race") on this page and in a different page in a historical context and Ancient Egypt in particular,

• Human genetics confirms that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities (Jorde & Wooding, 2004). Nonetheless, it can also be important to highlight that scientific evidence supports that populations cluster genetically by broad geographic regions (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Americas) which generally correspond to socially recognized racial classification or self-identified geographical ancestry (Rosenberg et al, 2002; Bamshad et al, 2004; Jorde & Wooding, 2004; Tishkoff & Kidd, 2004).
• Remaining mindful that human populations are not discrete and are not nonoverlapping entities, it can be considered that self-reported population ancestry (captured by concepts of race) has been suggested as a suitable and useful proxy for genetic ancestry (Rosenberg et al, 2002; Bamshad et al, 2004). At the common sense level, phenotypic differences between broad populations are often readily observable (as is the case for skin pigmentation or curliness of the hair filament).
• From a computer vision perspective, race or ethnicity supervised classification algorithms (Roomi et al, 2011; Wang et al, 2016; Das et al, 2018; Mohammad et al, 2018; Xu et al, 2019; Ilkin Serengil & Ozpinar, 2020; Krishnan et al, 2020; Ahmed et al, 2020) and their often excellent performance reinforce the notion that human geographical ancestry (as non-discrete categories) can be inferred from visual information and remains relevant to science and engineering.

Therefore, it should be emphasized that sources which reflect historical human categorization (using the term "race") when genetic data was not available can remain particularly valuable in the context of the present page (as long as it is acknowledged somewhere that science has recognized that human populations are not discrete, nonoverlapping entities). To conclude by illustrating: the existence of heterochromia does not invalidate the use of specific eye color terminology when genetic data is not available, nor should it preclude the use of historical references to the "blue eyes" category (which can be usefully inferred by intelligent algorithms).

From observation (elsewhere and above) and experience, a summary of wikipedia best practice is provided and shared here to help encourage future discussions focused on content generally. Assistance with reviewing contributions can be provided as needed.

C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena I completely agree with the points raised. I would appreciate your input and contribution in relation to the current revisions and review above. Perhaps after @Wdford has made his revisions, then you can assist in reviewing them and the inclusion of extra additions. Also, I think the discussion on genetic ancestry, population clusters and racial classifications would be especially relevant to the DNA sub-section/article page and should be featured. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena Thanks for helping to edit but unfortunately we are still in the process of trimming and selecting the most authoritative sources. Could you hold off with adding material to the culture/archaeological subsection and remove the material relating to Qustul, until @Wdford has made his edits and the group decides on adding specific content. WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020 Alright. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger NzakimuenaCheers. WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Why was a source removed here leaving the text unsourced?

[19] Doug Weller talk 14:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I re-inserted the Fekri reference in the next edit above. That was an accident and the source has already been re-entered. WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)