...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
1- Basic database of Nile Valley studies
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] [b]Below is a decent academic roundup of Egyptology research on migratory versus in-situ development and composition of Ancient Egyptian population. Much of the info is already known but the author throws in some fresh references, of fairly recent origin. The author also has a thesis paper comparing the prevalence of dental caries in Nubian and Egyptian populations.[/b] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [IMG]http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1669/nilevalleytimeline2.jpg[/IMG] [b]Ancient Egyptian Origins- [/b] by Konstantine Triambelas 2010.doc https://www.academia.edu/1527176/Ancient_Egyptian_origins The biological origin and population history of Dynastic Egyptians (3000-343 BCE) have been central issues in the study of complex societies, among which Egypt presents one of the earliest examples. Egypt is particularly important in this respect because Egyptian kings were the first to extend the rule of centralized authority over a vast geographical region. In contrast, Mesopotamian polities were organized as city-states in control of a limited, peripheral agricultural area. And whereas Old Kingdom Egypt (2686-2125 BCE) was characterized by regional stability and social cohesion, much of early Sumerian and Mesopotamian history is punctuated by regional antagonism, endemic warfare between city-states, and resource competition (Yoffee 1995). Mesopotamia is unified for the first time in 2270 BCE under Sargon of Akkad who thus establishes the first empire in recorded history. Egypt, however, had constituted it’s own local ‘empire’, at least based on size, much earlier. By 2500 BCE Egypt is a regional power in its own right with centralized bureaucracy, international trade networks, monumental architecture on a grand scale, surplus economy, standing military, and ideoreligious beliefs promoting conformity and stability (Wenke 1989). Moreover, the significant changes leading to this type of complexity take place rather quickly, within the few hundred years from the beginning of Naqada I (Amratian, 4000-3500 BCE) to the First Dynasty (3000-2890 BCE). Physical anthropologists and archaeologists with an interest in the biocultural components of change during rapid social transformation have thus taken a keen interest in the biological origins of Dynastic Egyptians. Generally speaking, scholarly opinions differentiate along two main lines as to the origins of the Dynastic: there are those who advocate an external, migratory event that either caused large-scale population replacement along the Nile Valley, or led to domination of the predynastic population by a ruling elite composed of newcomers (Giuffrida-Rugeri 1915, Morant 1925, Petrie 1939, Baumgartel 1955); and those who opt for an in situ development along lines of general continuity with the preceding predynastic cultures (Greene 1972, Hassan 1986a and 1988, Bard 1994 and 2000, Keita 2004, Irish 2006 and 2009). The purpose of this paper is to provide support for the in situ hypothesis in the evolution of the dynastic cultures in ancient Egypt. The argument in favor of the hypothesis will be formulated in two main directions. I believe that the greatest validation for regional cultural development is offered in the bioarchaeological record. Thus part of the pro- in situ argument is concerned with review and discussion of relevant archaeological, ecological/behavioral, and osteodental studies. These a) establish biocultural continuity between the Neolithic, Predynastic, and Dynastic periods of Egyptian history and b) present no evidence for large-scale population replacement, though do not rule out localized admixture. The other component in the regional hypothesis argument will attempt to deconstruct the concept of race as means of explaining biological affinity and cultural change. ‘Race’ is an important factor in early attempts to explain the considerable, at times, material changes that take place in Egypt. Influenced by ethnocentric notions of cultural superiority some early Egyptologists were inclined to attribute the origin of complex societies to a Caucasian ‘race’, usually of European or Semitic affiliation. The replacement model for cultural evolution in Egypt is largely hinged upon the premise that ‘races’ can be confidently identified by specific, and exclusive, skeletal and cranial traits. Modern microbiological studies, however reveal, that most of the phenotypic variability in humans is shared within the so-called ‘racial’ groups, instead of between them (Lewontin 1972, Nei and Roychoudhury 1974, Relethford 2002). Thus ‘race’ does not represent a valid taxonomic unit for identifying biological relationships. If one abandons racial explanations in assessment of past human bioaffinity, total population replacement becomes the least likely option. A deconstruction of race is therefore necessary in order for us to interpret phenetic variability in ancient Egyptians from an evolutionary and adaptive perspective. Such discussion takes place in the next two sections, followed by discussion of the bioarchaeological evidence for continuity. [/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