...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
OT: 100 things you SHOULD know about Africa
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by legeonas: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: I take it that you don't know the answer to the simple question?[/QUOTE]Apparently you don't know what a relative comparison is.[/QUOTE]Immaterial. You didn't answer a direct/concise question asked, which says that you are incapable of answering it. [QUOTE]legeonas: [QUOTE]I take it that you didn't bother reading the link. If you did, then tell me what is wrong with William's assessements from the concrete evidence he studied.[/QUOTE]Apparently you did not read Frank Yurco.[/QUOTE]You evaded the question asked again. You proclaimed to have read the link to a publication from the William himself, and yet failed to act on the request made of you. Thus you have no case, until you address this. Do you have to have Yurco read the link in question [i]for you[/i], before you actually have the backbone to answer a simple question? [QUOTE]legeonas: [QUOTE]The study *supports* the idea that Ta-Seti [in so-called "Nubia"] elites were integrated into Nagadan "elite social layer", as suggested by archeological evidence. If you understood this point, then "great" for you.[/QUOTE]No it does not. It supports that they had similar phenotypes. That is it. Could be they had common ancestors 500 years before. It does not mean one derives from the other. [/QUOTE]You've acknowledge yourself that the Nagada elites in question are deemed to be distinct from other specimens from "ordinary" local burials dating to that period. Again, you have no case; "denial" is not a form of case, addressing the evidence [i]objectively[/i] to the contrary, however, [i]is[/i]. [QUOTE]legeonas: [QUOTE]Apparently the person who wrote this so-called "critique" didn't bother to read the study in question; Zakrzewski mentioned in detail the tombs and burial sites [including periods they belong to] where the specimens came from.[/QUOTE]Apparently he held questionable the sources of those places because of their lack of recency.[/QUOTE]He hasn't refuted the findings. Having said that, questioning in itself in of no relevance; the real question is whether his question has any material value, which in this case, you haven't yet demonstrated that he did. [QUOTE]legeonas: [QUOTE]See post above. No one cares about a 'critique' that fails to 'refute' the findings in question, which would be to say that the specimens, as described as "tropical body plans", is inaccurate, and why.[/QUOTE]Read the post again. It states that the sample was not comprehensive enough and that more studies had to be done.[/QUOTE]Immaterial. Samples were enough, since they all correspond to the [i]same findings[/i]: "Tropical body plan" time and again...just as other researchers noted in the study had observed prior to Zakrzewski. [QUOTE]legeonas: [QUOTE][QUOTE]In which case, you had no point in talking about those studies in the first place.[/QUOTE]Hardly. The study took place. I just don't have it. Much like you guys claim Diop's studies.[/QUOTE]But we have Diop's studies, and the specifics involved. You don't for your source, and so, your post is pointless - it was posted just for the sake of arguing without material value. [QUOTE]legeonas: [QUOTE]A hypothesis without basis. The burden is on you to produce evidence that "Meroitic" script develops from "Europeans" or "Indians", as opposed to the Meroites themselves, from pre-existing Nile-Valley developed scripts [demotic and heratic].[/QUOTE]Similar amount of lettering, is one coincidence that could be a basis for the hypothesis.[/QUOTE]It is immaterial. Show me genetically, and structurally/gramatically and etmologically, how Meroitic is developed from European or Indian scripts, as opposed to pre-existing indigenous Nile Valley ones. [QUOTE]legeonas: As I did not write it, it is irrelevant to me.[/QUOTE]Hence, it was a pointless post, because you had no clue about what you were posting. [QUOTE]legeonas: It is as valid as the one that it only evolved from Meroitic, especially considering their is no reson for the differentiation.[/QUOTE]It isn't. Meroitic is easily shown to be a derivative of Demotic, which it structurally also resembles, albeit with unique Meroitic characteristics. [QUOTE]legeonas: [QUOTE]What technology did Europe have at the height of Malian complex's wealth? However knowledge in Mali is well attested to in its wealth and the body of evidential material of literature, and other associated relics saved from that period. What was "London's" technology at the height of the Malian wealth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology [quote]I ask again, what "primary texts", not "Ecowas" [Ecowas doesn't date to that period, nor is it a "primary text"], dating back to the period coinciding with the height of Malian complex, tells us about the population numbers of that complex? [/QUOTE]First answer your own question. What primary sources do you have? Encarta is the one that states that it was 40,000 in the 16th century.[/QUOTE]I can't, because it is responding to your baseless charges. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3