...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptians DNA is Less Sub Saharan than modern Egyptian DNA.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] There's no concrete evidence for an Egyptian colony in south Levant. Even the article these Afroloons are posting notes the hypothetical colony is denied by a competing commerce/trade model.[/qb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE] The nature and dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite interaction during the second half of the fourth millennium B.C. can be categorized by four primary theories/models, [b]none of which necessarily excludes one or more of the others,[/b] as they might seem to at first perusal. [b]Rather, these four theories (Andelkovic 1995: 67-72) bring into focus different aspects[/b]: - a) naked force, b) economic exploitation, c) colonial presence and d) the exerciseof socio-political power; - of one and the same phenomenon, the Egyptian Protodynastic colony in southern Canaan. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] Anyway, the hypothetical colony only lasted a century- "[T]he establishment of an Egyptian colony that had functioned for approximately a century [c. 3150 - 3050 BCE]." ( [URL=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23788141]Yekutieli, 2004[/URL]) The colony is denied by some archaeologists because it lasted for only around 100 years. So it seems more likely this was just a trading post. Even if this brief colony did exist, it wouldn't have had a big genetic/cultural impact in the south Levant. Those archaeologists arguing for the colony estimate the colony was no greater than 40 km. [/qb][/QUOTE]This (as in quote below) is saying occupation was 250-150 years, and that southern Canaan was left highly Egyptianized throughout the contact. [QUOTE] Several scholars have characterized the Egyptian presence in southern Canaan by the terms “colony”, “colonization”, “colonial system”, “colonial elite” etc., but these terms are hardly ever precisely defined. Moreover, the terms are often qualified by quotation marks or employed to signify some other meaning such as “trading colony” or “mercantile colony”. In order to fill a need for a more precise meaning, after reviewing several colony definitions, the term colony par excellence, was introduced (Andelkovic 1995: 71-72). It denotes a non-self-governing, continuous and compact territory in southern Canaan, [b]controlled by the Egyptian, Dynasty 0, Crown during Naqada IIIa1-c1 ca. 3300/3200-3100/3050 B.C (i.e. the end of early, middle, and late phases of EB IB, in terms of Canaanite chronology).[/b] During the period southern Canaan was, as Gophna (1995: 265) has noted, [b]”highly Egyptianized”, or as Porat has suggested (1986/87: 118) “an extension of Egypt and not just under Egyptian influence”.[/b] [/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]It says "several scholars" support that theory, denied by other archaeologists as I've shown. What you just quoted is disputed and pretty much falsified by the 1986 scholar I posted (can you rebut his argument?) Confirmation bias just has you choose certain sources over the others, without even looking at the latter. That's why Afrocentrism is a pseudo-history, you don't even engage sources with different (counter) arguments or views that conflict with your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias [/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