...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Kemet
»
Beware of the New Surge of 'Information War'
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] The 18th dynasty was founded by Ahmose I who expelled the Hyksos (1550 BC) Amarna is 18th Dynsaty including the Amenhoteps, Thutmoses, Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Tutankhamun and others The Amarna Kings were stricken from the Kings list [/qb][/QUOTE]So why didn't they invetigate Amenhoteps, Thutmoses, Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Tutankhamun and had others tested? [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by sudaniya: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by sudaniya: Based on the fact that Abusir was a Hyksos settlement [/QUOTE]Abusir was not a Hyksos settlement [/qb][/QUOTE]Abusir was a Hyksos site. Even posters on Forumbiodiversity admit to this fact. [/qb][/QUOTE][QUOTE] [i]Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant[/i]. [b]54[/b][/QUOTE]--Verena J. Schuenemann et al. Side note 54: Mumford, G. D. Egypt and the Levant, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE Oxford (2014). https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-of-the-levant-9780199212972?cc=nl&lang=en& [/qb][/QUOTE]It's a general statement . It doesn't say that Abusir el-Meleq was a Hyksos settlement. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: These mummies fall within the range of the same late dynasty. The oldest specimen in the Abusir samples goes back to 769 B.C. [/QUOTE]The Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt was the first Hyksos dynasty ( 1650 to 1550 BC) a period of about 100 years The 18th dynasty was founded by Ahmose I who expelled the Hyksos (1550 BC) Amarna is 18th Dynsaty including the Amenhoteps, Thutmoses, Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Tutankhamun and others The Amarna Kings were stricken from the Kings list The 19th and 20th included the Ramesses and Setis and others The date 769 BC, around the mummies analyzed is far later than the Hyksos is around the Libyan period and prior to the Nubian but the Libyans were ruling up north in the Delta not where Abusir el-Meleq is which was an important religious and trading centre. [/qb][/QUOTE]LOL What they say is: [list] [*][i][b]second millennium BCE onwards[/b], there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt,[/i] [/list] There own sources shows the reference to side note 54: [i]Mumford, G. D. Egypt and the Levant, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE Oxford (2014).[/i] They actually claimed it's a Fayum settlement. On what they've based this, is unknown: [list] [*][i]"To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064- 656 BC) to the Roman Period (30 BC- 300 AD)."[/i] [/list] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] "The genetics of the Abusir el-Meleq community did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300 year timespan we studied, suggesting that the population remained genetically relatively unaffected by foreign conquest and rule," says Wolfgang Haak, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena. [/qb][/QUOTE]They themselves stated later that: [list] [*][i]Unfortunately, [b]mummies from the Old till early New Kingdom are not present at the site or and not included in our data set[/b], which focusses on the three consecutive periods. [/i] [*][i]This is important as it is the first time that such estimates can be contrasted with reported historic Egyptian census numbers from the neighbouring Fayum in the early Ptolemaic Period, which had a reported total population size of 85,000–95,000 inhabitants33.[/i] [*][i]Written sources indicate that by the third century BCE Abusir el-Meleq was at the centre of a wider region that comprised the northern part of the Herakleopolites province, and had close ties with the Fayum and the Memphite provinces, involving the transport of wheat, cattle-breeding, bee-keeping and quarrying42.[/i] [*][i]In the early Roman Period, the site appears to have been the main centre in its own district42. Abusir el-Meleq’s proximity to, and close ties with, the Fayum are significant in the context of this study as the Fayum in particular saw a substantial growth in its population during the first hundred years of Ptolemaic rule, presumably as a result of Greek immigration33,43. Later, in the Roman Period, many veterans of the Roman army—who, initially at least, were not Egyptian but people from disparate cultural backgrounds—settled in the Fayum area after the completion of their service, and formed social relations and intermarried with local populations44.[/i] [*][i]It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian[/i] society55. [*][i]Especially since we are unable to determine a real value of population size during this time period, we relied on historic records for the Fayum oasis and estimated a conservative population size from this (Supplementary Table 4). To even further ensure that these chosen values are not changing our results drastically, we evaluated ranges around these assumptions to test whether our results changed significantly[/i] [/list] AND [list] [*][i]As mentioned in response to Q4, [b]the individual information is scarce[/b]. We have included all available information and anthropological data (see lines: 176-192) in the revised manuscript and supplementary information now.[/i] [/list] :D :D :D This paper is a JOKE, with constant contradictions!!! [/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