posted New study suggests total conquest or "swamping" of the north by the south is overstated and that actual takeover may have been more peaceful. Overall results do not change current consensus that the south rose to dominate all of Kemet.
QUICK NOTES - charts to be looked at later on more detail:
The study by Keita and Godde tests the predominance of the south in early Kemetic state formation. Was the north "swamped" by the south or was it more assimilated peacefully? Results support a more peaceful interaction and spread.
Bottom line: The study does not shake the traditional view that the south rose to prominence and assumed dominance over all Kemet. And the notion of "swamping" in older models may be overblown. Few Egyptologists today argue that there was massive migration, replacement and conquest- south to north. Authors focus on the model of W Keiser from the 1950s on this, but few modern Egyptologists since the 1980s hold to any "swamping" model. And yet there are well documented artifacts and inscriptions as to warfare during the state formation period, so some conquest or warring must have been in place- alongside peaceful trade. The bottom line is that the south rose to dominate Egypt. Whether it was halfway peaceful with a mix or trade or warfare, or total conquest or whatever, makes little difference.
The study does affirm southern primacy:-Quote:
"Kohler^ does not deny a “special” role for Upper Egypt in state formation (i.e. a political process) stating: 'What happened during the Dynasty, as part of the second stage in state formation, clearly bears out a strong southern political influence.."
----Keita, SOY, Godde, K. 2016. A preliminary analysis of diachronic craniometric geographical variation during the Predynastic-Early Dynastic period: possible population implications for the theories of the merger of upper and lower Egypt. Göttinger Miszellen 249: 97-110.
Tukuler Member # 19944
posted
Haven't read it yet
Not very interested in Keita anymore. Expected he would write for $ aid form a team and get down to some real business.
But he's a solo artist who's gone to duets, like with Shriner, where who knows what he actually contributed.
Oh. There are zupposed to be some skull features that show genetic inheritance of a kind related to population genetics. About conquest artefacts. Could just be propaganda or mytho-narratives that never happened. There're examples of the same exact 'conquest' in monumental art
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova Member # 15718
posted
He is an establishemnt guy- but does affirm southern primacy and his data shows that northern groups are not all that "different" from southern in the Overall scope of things. This debunks those who are still pushing a Dynastic Race/"Hamiticism" line. His data also affirms the principle of balance, that he and many here support- a salutary corrective in these days where DNA studies are too often touted as the "last word.."
posted