...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
A question for afrocentrists
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] QUOTE]Originally posted by huy60: [qb] @zarahan- 1/ I'm sorry but you did not address my post at all. You simply avoided the points I raised. “The Egyptian language – which has been preserved on the monuments of the oldest time, as well as in the late-Christian manuscripts of the Copts, the successors of the people of the Pharaohs – in no way shows any trace of a derivation and descent from the African families of speech [...] the primitive roots and the essential elements of the Egyptian grammar point to such an intimate connection with the Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages” “The first view of the Ethiopian monuments at once carries the conviction, that we can recognise in them no special quality beyond the rudest conception and the most imperfect execution of a style of art originally Egyptian. The most clumsy imitation of Egyptian attainments in all that relates to science and the arts, appears as the acme of the intellectual progress and the artistic development in Ethiopia.” 2/ Your text does not definitely confirm the afrocentric story. I personally think that ancient egyptians simply developed tropically adapted traits due to adaptation. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X09001176 "The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated." 3/ "Cold adaptation was to bring about several physical changes over time from the initial Out of Africa migrations to Europe." That does not prove OoA's theory is true. In fact, OoA has been completely destroyed and discredited, and everyone is already aware of the flaws with OoA you know. http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/featafrica http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009746/Modern-mans-ancestor-Homo-erectus-extinct-108-000-years-earlier-previously-thought.html#ixzz1SmuAiGkF http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7685610/Humans-share-Neanderthal-genes-from-interbreeding-50000-years-ago.html http://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13279.full.pdf+html (and there are other many studies...) 4/ "Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation." It seems very interesting. Can someone give me the link to that study ? 5/ There is some studies that did not fit well with the afrocentric version. http://wysinger.homestead.com/discrete_cranial.pdf see figure 3 http://95.211.45.61/hanihara.flatness.pdf see page 130 http://www.anthro.amu.edu.pl/pdf/paar/vol062/07pudlo.pdf see page 64-65 [/qb][/QUOTE] ^^^nobody is going to address all of these at one time, you have to make separate threads for language, monuments, morphology. On mouments, the opinion on Ethiopians style copies is irrelevant the afrocetrics point to the Nubian A-Group's Qustul Incense burner as evidence of a continuum. Qustul is in Sudan not Ethiopia. Ethiopia is not claimed as a predecessor. Language is addressed by Theophile obenga. The in situ hypothesis does not prove that the process occured on non-Africans. OOA is still the mainstream position of anthropolgists. If you want relpies about it, same things a separate thread on multi regional hypothesis not with newspaper articles about it. -with links to primary studies mentioned in those articles and excerpt quotes. [/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