...
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 Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb]Here is my point. Rome had as much if not more admixture with surrounding populations including Africans and Asians as any other ancient culture. Does anybody seriously claim that the Romans weren't indigenous Europeans? Of course not. When was the last time somebody needed a DNA test to prove the Romans were Europeans? [/qb] [/QUOTE]Part of this you can probably chalk up to racism, in which case you're gonna have to suck it up buttercup. You might not think it's "fair" you have to achieve a higher standard of data, but the situation is how it's gonna be right now. On the other hand Rome isn't Egypt geographically. It has not been a corridor for OOA migrations for thousands of years before Egypt began. It's not land that is physically attached to the Levant and connects two continents. It's closest neighbors are European and though it's accessible to other groups by water, accessibility by land is going to be easier. [/qb][/QUOTE]Sucking up is when folks like to pretend distortions of limited data and misinformation is "good science". As it stands some folks seem to want to be on the side of folks presenting this data as the defining statement once and for all on Egypt. I don't, because my objective is truth and facts not "sucking up". And the historical fact of racism as part of European history which was combined with the origins of anthropology as "race science" is documented fact. So if you believe Negroes are simply one step from forest apes and not capable of advanced culture and science then fine. But that is where the root of this debate goes to. And no I don't have to accept that. Somehow some folks get offended by that and that is absurd. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]Just like nobody would seriously claim that the presence of African burial grounds in colonial America implies that Europeans didn't settle America. [/qb][/QUOTE]Are you truly suggesting that the greater wealth of data for a nation as YOUNG as America is analagous to Egypt, to which our sampling, material data and written data is going to be much more sparse considering the age?[/qb][/QUOTE]No what I said was other empires had cosmopolitan cities and other ethnic populations as part of the "mix". It doesn't change the basic character of the civilization, where it started, who dominated it and who controlled it. By that logic, waves of Mexican immigrants changes America from a European country into something else... Finding evidence of other ethnic groups in some ancient culture doesn't "prove" that those folks created the culture or dominated it. Meaning nobody in their right mind id going to say that evidence of Africans and Asians in Rome changes Rome into a non European culture, even though they too had mixture and mixed Kings even. Same thing in Persia and the same thing in Greece. The point being that some level of mixture was the norm in most ancient empires and cultures. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] There were settlements in Rome and ancient Greece with many Africans, Levantines and some Asians. And we know the late periods of both Greece and Rome were heavily mixed because of the imperial expansion of both cultures. Does that make Greece and Rome less European? ALL ancient Empires had settlements, trading posts and "cosmopolitan" enclaves with populations from outside the country and within the empire as it spread out. [/QUOTE][/qb] Cept the authors inferred the mixture was present [b]before[/b] a dynastic/cosmopolitan Egypt existed. It increased in the north near 2,000 B.C but was always present. And yes, I consider Abusir northern Egypt even if it's not considered Lower/Delta Egypt. [/qb][/QUOTE]They "inferred" is not the same as they "proved" how many were there, how they got there or what the percentage of people at any given time. They themselves even urged caution about trying to make generalizations based on limited data. Again, there are PLENTY MORE mummies that can be analyzed to actually tell us more. Sounds like you want to believe this no matter what the facts might be. I don't know why. The facts are always better than mere suggestion and innuendo. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] This is not new or unique. Folks are making too much out of too little data. For one thing, Egypt had expanded way into the Levant from an early period. Therefore, some of these settlements could have been descendants of their "allies" from the Levant. [/QUOTE][/qb] The authors don't rule out the possibility of Canaanite influences contributing to what we see here. I'm not opposed to the hypothesis that the migrations we know happened near the 2,000 BC could explain these findings. However the coalescence date would suggest Levanites contact with Egypt BEFORE dynastic Egypt, and the surrounding evidence suggests that such migrations were not just a one-way stop into the Levant. [/qb][/QUOTE]But it is a hypothesis. It is not proven. Lets be consistent. If the standard is that an "African" Egypt needs proof in DNA and triplicate. Then should the same standard not apply to Northern Egypt being overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC? Again nobody needs DNA to prove ancient Rome was European no matter the level of mixture, but somehow Africans need extra proof... odd how that works. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] Late period Egypt even before the Saite period was well known to depend on Levantine mercenaries for defense, including some Greeks. It doesn't mean that all of Northern Egypt was Levantine as if these people just freely came in waves and dominated Northern Egypt.[/qb][/QUOTE]But we're talking about northern Egypt within the historical context of 2,000 B.C. Where we know that there [b]were[/b] migrations into Egypt. We know that even prior to the Hyksos these Levanite migrants began taking control of the Delta region. There's enough surrounding historical information about this period where I feel comfortable with the conclusion that the North was a major melting pot by 2,000 B.C and had enough Levanites living there to maintain secession from Upper Egypt. [/qb][/QUOTE]It could be but again this is not proven is all I am saying. What you believe is not the same as what has been proven. Otherwise what makes you better than so called "Afrocentrics"? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE] We know full well that during the Middle and New Kingdom successive Southern Dynasties came to push back encroachment of foreigners into the North. [/QUOTE]They took back control of Egypt. Hell they may've expelled people who didn't wish to submit. But obviously everyone with Levanite ancestry was not expelled. [/qb][/QUOTE]Of course. Not my point though. We don't know when this Levantine ancestry entered for a fact and what numbers and how much of the population in any given area was "Levantine" versus "local". This study does not have nowhere near enough data to even begin to understand that and some folks are just running off like they have proof of things they don't. And in reality how is that different from the so-called "white camp" on other forums? This is really weird. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] Not to mention, this is from Middle Egypt not Northern Egypt. Saqqarah and Dashur are NORTH of Abusir-el-Melek. Before folks make sweeping statements they need to look at the mummies from places like Saqqarah and Dashur which are old kingdom and then mummies from places like Beni Hassan which are middle kingdom. [/qb][/QUOTE]Are you saying there's data in those areas which doesn't corroborate the author's data? Well, I have theories on that too depending on where those areas are but I'll leave you to answer that first. [/qb][/QUOTE]By definition this is the first full genome from ancient Egypt. Therefore there is no other data similar to it from there. The point is they should be using the new techniques to gather more data..... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]The point I was making earlier is that over 3 thousand years of course populations change but to try and make general statements about an entire population over 3000 years that may have produced hundreds of millions of mummies from just 150 remains is flawed science. [/qb][/QUOTE]If you're not denying your data supports a falsifiable hypothesis then that's not true. Saying something like "our findings suggest that..." or "present findings support the theory that.." is not flawed science. In science we acknowledge limitations of the knowable. Scientific data may not always be capable of supporting objective reality but you accept that fallibility. There may have been millions of people mummified but only a fraction of those remains are viable for genetic analysis. What can be analyzed may not be representational but it's the extent of what scientific findings can support. [/qb][/QUOTE]Our findings suggest does not constitute proof. You seem to want science to not have to provide hard proof. If you want to believe something you don't need proof. That is not science. If all you need is a belief then why do any further science? If you simply want to believe that ancient Egypt was evenly split between Levantines in the North and "Others" in the south then fine, but don't expect everybody to accept that. As they shouldn't. Again, if the standard is for proof of an African Egypt then this same standard should apply to any other theory right? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]The fact is "Afrocentrics" didn't start this obsession with Egypt by European scholars and the racist science they created around studying Egypt. That is absurd. Napoleon and the "discovery" of Egypt by Europeans and the following years of "Egyptomania" had absolutely nothing to do with "Afrocentrics". [/qb][/QUOTE]That's not especially important to the point I was making about needing to make burdens of proof clear and concise and to establish conservative estimates. Like I said, you may not think it's fair that you have to achieve a higher standard of excellence but it's the reality of the world you live in. Whoever started the whole debate, Afrocentrics are in this debate now and where they've messed up routinely is in their assumptions that there was an African Egypt void of significant mixture until the late period (if that) across all regions and time periods. That line of thinking is [b]very[/b] easy to call into question. [/qb][/QUOTE]But you just said it is OK to believe something with only a suggestion and not definite proof. And really I don't care what you believe but why are you so adamant about pushing belief as hard facts? You do know those are two different things don't you? And how is that different than the so called folks you claim are obsessed with an "African" Egypt? And again why do Africans need such a high standard of proof to show that Egypt is in Africa and was primarily populated by Africans during much of the dynastic period (with some mixture). If that is the standard why doesn't it apply to Greece, Rome or China? I don't recall any folks doing extensive DNA testing on those ancient culture. That is a hypocritical double standard. Especially when you can sit here and say that the domination of Northern Egypt by Levantines doesn't require the same level of proof and excellence... give me a break. [/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