...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Lower Egyptian Levanite(?) influence dates 2,000 BC
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sudaniya: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] If I had to guess they believe it proves it wasn't "African." I mean you can feel free to quote anything if clarity is needed though since I'm merely assuming. What I typically see the mainstream doing is suggesting that the findings a of given location and era speaks for the entire dynastic period. They ignore the cautions the author places several times because they'd rather not have to think about it anymore. But dynastic Egypt was THOUSANDS of years old. To continue placing this into perspective: The United states was founded in 1776 and is nearly 250 years old. But it's already seeing a majority demographic shift. It actually saw demographic shifts earlier but staved them off by racist immigration policies. By 2050 whites will be a majority minority. If we were researchers in the future, would that mean that the country wasn't founded by whites? Even if for the rest of it's history it was mestizo or mulatto? Even if for the next 2,000 years it was Mestizo, the nation would've emerged as a white country. To be fair though the "Afrocentric" crowd has done this sort of thing too which made things a little confusing for me at the start. I acknowledge even I didn't think too much about shifting population demographics.But would finding the Amarna mummies really give us an idea on what Egypt was at state formation? Would Ramses? Could that data give us a picture for all regions in Egypt during all periods? Or even just the periods before the Late Period? The answer to that seems to be an obvious no. Their data is relevant with respect to era and location. To their credit however, the Afrocentric position has bit more reason to carry themselves in such a way because it's combined with data from Sudan corroborates the cultural complex from southern Egypt was shared with [b]Sudan[/b]. And Sudan's genetic data doesn't seem to look like the stuff in this study. This is why there's a problem with state formation coming from the south and having a relationship with Sudan. Because Nubian genetic data doesn't seem to support this picture. The Afrocentric crew would probably be especially wise to demonstrate cultural continuity in the area thousands of years predating the emergence of dynastic Egypt. [/qb][/QUOTE]You don't have to bend so far back. E1b1a is the only thing really "missing" from modern Sudanese populations... Believe it or not, everything will make sense once/if we get more aDNA from km.t. The Copts in Sudan weren't always in Sudan... The population now referred to as the Beja weren't always 60% (give or take) Eurasian. [b]Remember the dates for widespread Levantine geneflow into east Africa.[/b] There is a chance that the truth is much much simpler than it seems. So far you've been on point in regards to the expansion detected by numerous outlets of NearEastern and even lower Egyptian populations. For one to superimpose the Abusir_El_meleq mummies over all of predynastic-dynastic Egypt one will have quite the amount of explaining to do. [/qb][/QUOTE]On the matter of Eurasian backflow in Semitic, Cushitic and Omotic Africans, did this occur extensively earlier than 3000 years ago? ENF or Natufian like ancestry apparently accounts for almost half of the ancestry of the aforementioned groups. Natufians seem to have been paternally African. [/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