...
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] [QUOTE] Sucking up is when folks like to pretend distortions of limited data and misinformation is "good science". [/qb][/QUOTE]When I said "suck it up buttercup" I was NOT saying "distortions" of limited data is "good science" I was saying that people may not like the fact that the world isn't operating on a level playing field, but you're not going to level it by merely being disgruntled. If your motive is in fighting for the minds of black people against a racial supremacist movement--if that's your main motivation for learning about Egypt, then you are going to have to achieve a higher standard. Because the people of this world--black people included will demand it against the mainstream propaganda heavily embedded that states otherwise. That's just the situation everybody's in. Then they have data like this which could easily call into question a steep argument that Egypt wasn't mixed in any regions (minimum) for much of it's history. Just imagining how unfair life is isn't going to fix anything. [/qb][/QUOTE]I am not disgruntled. I am laughing at you trying to spin your beliefs and theories into being hard proven facts when they aren't and claiming that folks need to do this so they don't seem like "angry afrocentrics". Come on man this is too ridiculous. If we are going to go by a hard standard then lets stick to that standard and not be hypocritical no? Trying to sit here and justify your position as grounded in "anti supremacist" isn't proof of anything. Either you have proof or you don't and it is pushing theories and beliefs without proof that is a hallmark of supremacists BTW. So again, like I said before, this paper is not "proof" of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt in 2000BC. Going fron one extreme to another is not being "objective". [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE] [qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]It depends on what someone's saying "defines" the character of a civilization. If someone's saying a country's origins define the character then Egypt could argued to be indigenous African with little mixture. If someone's saying that the character is relative to time and space, and that the character of a nation can be one thing at one time and region, and another in a different place and time within the country. If waves of mestizo immigrants enter and become a majority and control the country, American civilization will be Latino--yes. It doesn't mean it began as that, but that's what it would be in it's present incarnation. [/qb][/QUOTE]Seriously this isn't that complex. Cultures, civilizations and empires have "enclaves" with various ethnic groups. Finding evidence of an enclave doesn't mean that the culture was "overrun" by foreigners. Finding an Asian settlement or neighborhood in Rome doesn't mean Rome was overrun by Asians. Just like large numbers of Latinos in America doesn't automatically mean that they dominate America or really overran it. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]There isn't merely evidence in northern Egypt of lineages. This wasn't just some mixture that's the result of some "cosmopolitan outpost" experience. Take the data within the context of the history going on at the time. At the time period of coalescence there was migration into the Delta. And not only was there migration, the northern parts of Egypt appointed foreign Levanite kings and had managed to [b]secede and stave off the governing bodies of Upper Egypt[/b]. Why the hell would a strong and relatively well-populated native population (even if they had wanted to secede on their own) allow [b]Levanites[/b] to [b]rule over[/b] them unless these Levanites were plentiful in the area and/or they'd been gradually mingling with the native population for hundreds of years prior to this event? Perhaps you have data that can answer something that sounds implausible to me at present? I await it. The Delta just goes on to secede from upper Egypt because of a few cosmopolitan outposts? [b]Highly unlikely[/b]. And why would Abusir, which held great cultural significance to native Egyptians (especially as a cult grounds for their death deity), be left as a cultural enclave and burial site for [b]foreigners[/b] over [b]their own people?[/b] [/qb][/QUOTE]You are speculating is what I am saying. And you can speculate all you want but that isn't hard fact. Coulda, woulda shoulda isn't proof. You seem to WANT this to be true not simply have a belief. Like I said going from one extreme: "no foreigners in Egypt" to "Northern Egypt was overrun by foreigners in 2000BC" is going from one extreme to another. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]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. [/qb] [/QUOTE]Science is not going to be able create an unfalsifiable conclusion about that. Data can thus only infer or support a conclusion not "prove" so there's no way to prove it false. Science "suggests" and offers falsifiable theories that allow for later revisions to previous ideas. Some data people will take as something being "proven" but they're not thinking scientifically when they do that.[/qb][/QUOTE]The "suggestion" of something is not proof in the sense of a large preponderance of likelihood. Again, sampling 3 mummies or 150 in the late period is not proof of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt to the point that there were no "native" Egyptians in Northern Egypt. That is simply logically absurd even without DNA testing. But you are determined to be believe what you want to believe and are of the position no further facts are required to support or defend this position. That sounds distinctly non scientific to me. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]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. [/qb][/QUOTE]It's not about what I "want" to believe this is about what the present data seems to suggest [b]so far[/b]. The author doesn't just review the genetic data, he considered the historical context suggested by OTHER disciplines that infer that the north was facing outside migrations and divisions with the south. Science is falsifiable which means I'm perfectly open to there being new data that paints a different picture. But until then this is the picture that seems to be here right now. [/qb][/QUOTE]This isn't about science being falsifiable. The paper isn't making the position that Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC. You are the one saying this. The authors of the paper themselves said openly this isn't enough data to cover the entire Egyptian population contemporaneous to those sampled or back into history. This is you trying to piggy back your beliefs on top of this paper as if that is all that is required to support your theory.... And it isn't. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]But it is a hypothesis. It is not proven. Lets be consistent. [/qb] [/QUOTE]Science isn't here to make unfalsifiable statements (or to essentially "prove" which means no data can disprove it). His conclusions are supported by coalescence dates that DATE INTO prehistory. So yes, they do have the data to support this. It's not "just a theory" with no supporting data. [/qb][/QUOTE]His conclusion wasn't that Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC. Seriously. The only thing this paper says was that there was that there was a presence of Levantines in the late period and evidence this presence had been in place for a while, maybe since 2000BC. That is not the same as saying Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]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. [/qb][/QUOTE]Rome wasn't connected to the Levant. Rome wasn't an entry and exit point for OOA migrations for [b]tens of thousands of years[/b] before Egypt. You say Rome was European no matter the level of mixture? How mixed does your available data suggest Rome became? Not the occupied territories, but Rome proper? How diverse did the source of cultural hegemony become? If the civilization's people largely stopped being European after awhile and their leadership reflected this shift, then at that point yes--ROME was not "purely" European and after a certain point became mixed. Egypt had Levanite migrations, secession and FOREIGN rule. [/qb][/QUOTE]We know there was foreign domination in Egypt, just not in 2000 BC. 2000BC is the beginning of the Middle Kingdom and the rise of another series of Southern Dynasties, who were strongly established in Middle Egypt as well. While we know there were Levantine incursions into Northern Egypt leading up to this, that does not imply Northern Egypt was "overrun" by ethnic Levantines to the exclusion of any "native" Egyptians. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]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. [/qb][/QUOTE]This study takes the data it generated and places it in the context of additional data on the Canaanite expansions (and secession) into Egypt. There is enough data to plausibly provide the falsifiable conclusion that there was significant mixture in Egypt in the north (minimum) by 2,000 B.C. [/qb][/QUOTE]What is "significant" mixture by 2000 BC? How much is significant? Don't you see we don't even have the DNA profile of what an "indigenous" Egyptian was over the course of ANY time period in Egypt? So how can one say what is "foreign" mixture and what is not? And that is in addition to having a limited sample of data that is not from 2000BC. Again, you are going beyond what the paper even supports and are trying to spin it as somehow incontrovertible evidence, when it is not. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] [QUOTE][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]The authors didn't say they shouldn't be more data. The authors even mention that data from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed for a complete picture of Egypt. However people can produce some falsifiable conclusions with the results that can be change as more data becomes available. That's how science works. [/QUOTE][/qb] Not just Southern Egypt and Sudan either. The idea that Northern Egypt was dominated or mostly "Levantine" by 2000 BC is nonsense. They should sample more of the Northern Cemeteries before during and after 2000 BC before even claiming something like that. Because right now it sounds like you are saying there were no "native" Egyptians in Northern Egypt after 2000 BC. That is absurd. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] Our findings suggest does not constitute proof. You seem to want science to not have to provide hard proof. [/qb][/QUOTE]Science CANNOT produce conclusions that ARE NOT falsifiable. Science can produce DATA (which this study HAS) but even theories like evolution must be falsifiable! [/qb][/QUOTE]Again, they are not saying what you are saying. What you are saying and what they are saying in this paper are two totally completely separate and different things. YOU keep trying to pretend your theory equates to what his paper is saying when it really is not. I don't believe the authors are claiming that Northern Egypt was overrun by, dominated by, ruled by or populated mostly by Levantine "mixed" folks from 2000 BC. That is YOU saying that. They say the data is limited and not proof of anything and that includes not only Southern Egypt but Northern Egypt as well. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] Again, if the standard is for proof of an African Egypt then this same standard should apply to any other theory right?[/qb][/QUOTE]They've already discussed material from other disciplines that point to periods of migration of foreigners into the north and combine that with genetic data they produced. They have DATA that corroborates this. They have enough data to support a falsifiable conclusion. [QUOTE][qb] But you just said it is OK to believe something with only a suggestion and not definite proof. [/qb][/QUOTE]What the hell is "definite proof?" Science is [b]never[/b] going to give you a non falsifiable answer. It's okay to believe something as long as you're not saying your belief will never require revisions as new data becomes available. [QUOTE][qb]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).[/qb][/QUOTE]Because Egypt connects to the Levant and has been the entry point for OOA back-migrations for tens of thousands of years. Rome isn't connected to the Levant. It's surrounded by European countries and is in western Europe. We also know there were waves of migration from the [b]genetic data[/b] at 1,000 B.C and this data which corroborates previous data that suggested Canaanite occupation and secession from Egypt near 2,000 B.C. You keep talking about "definite proof" but the extent of your [b]particular[/b] brand of "black Egypt" conclusions are not supported with any "definite" proof that both major regions of Egypt throughout all of it's eras (before the Late Period) were largely unmixed. I haven't seen any data that refutes mixture from you, but you cling to this conclusion which isn't scientific. You're holding onto a preset conclusion you [b]want[/b] and then choosing to accept data as "definitive proof" based on how well it fits. [/qb][/QUOTE]OOA Back migration? That is a contradiction in terms. Now we are talking about back migrations going back 60,000 years from this one paper? Seriously? So to me it just sounds like you believe that there were no "indigenous Africans" in Northern Africa after OOA because back migrations wiped them all out... Whatever. I still believe there is no proof of that but folks will believe whatever they want to. [/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