...
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 Ish Gebor: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]I remember Djehuti commenting something along the lines of the North African/Sub-Saharan African dichotomy being a false one...[/QUOTE]This one in particular is going to come in handy later on. Note the confused attempt of going out on a limb since his source (Irish) is saying the exact opposite. His source IS, in fact, saying that there is a legitimate dichotomy between SSA and North Africa as far as this dental pattern is concerned. So, in one second he's quote-mining Irish's "homogeneous" part, but the next he's in bald-faced denial about the traits they were homogeneous in and how these traits relate to other Africans? Given the fact that Irish explicitly states that the troll's so-called "non-black" Maghrebis have [b]the same dental pattern as the AE[/b], it begs the question [b]how the troll knows that the dynastic lower Egyptians were homogeneous in the sense of lacking more common ancestry with these so-called "non-blacks"[/b]. Given that this sort of exclusion of so-called "non-blacks" is what the troll is really after when he manipulates and lies about Irish's use of "homogeneous", how does the troll know that Egyptians who diverged from the predynastic type in dynastic times didn't have a greater amount of common ancestry (or even admixture) with these so-called "non-blacks"? He doesn't know anything. He's deliberately lying as usual. He's simply abusing Irish's work to turn these lower Egyptians he's uncomfortable with into something more palatable. As I've already established, this "homogeneity" Irish speaks of doesn't neatly circumscribe 'desirable' North Africans and exclude the 'undesirable' so-called "non-black" Maghrebis as the liar will have you believe. [/qb][/QUOTE]Swenet, I am not so familiar with Irish his works. But can you explain this one: [QUOTE]"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose." [/QUOTE]-- Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians. 2009 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Rici8T4AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate [/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