...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component
» 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 Elite Diasporan: [qb] Why are we talking about the Ancient Egyptians? *sigh* [/qb][/QUOTE]Because Egypt is in North Africa and because the Nile Valley has the oldest continuous evidence of settlement in North Africa. Outside the Nile Valley most ancient settlements are found very near the coasts of North Africa and hence most open to "migration". Areas in the interior of North Africa are far less often cited in DNA studies of "North Africa" primarily because it is now a desert and mostly sparsely populated. Most of the modern populations of North Africa are settled towards the coast of the Mediterranean, including in Egypt. This pattern of settlement is relatively recent (at least in Egypt) and does not represent the ancient settlement patterns going back tens of thousands of years. Because of all of the above, many anthropologists have been more than willing to propose a model of North Africa as having been settled by a distinct population separate from Africans of the interior. This model of settlement has become the dominant model in anthropology even though alternate models are in play. The Nile Valley is one exception to this model as it provides a corridor of settlement to the interior of the continent. Thus this area has always been a focus on the determining the role of "Native" Africans in North Africa and "migrants" in the history of North Africa. Obviously there is an "indigenous" DNA component in North Africa (or has been in history), but the problem is you aren't going to find that component easily in coastal sites. Africa has always been a relatively sparsely populated continent compared to other places. Even though you can fit Western Europe and China (along with India and the United States) into the boundaries of Africa, Africa has far less population density than any of these places. So DNA is easily erased or washed away by relatively small scale amounts of migration, especially in places like North Africa. The Sahara makes the population density even less, which means finding an example of a "pristine" ancient "indigenous" population settlement going back many thousands of years almost like finding a needle in a haystack. That said, there are sites that have been found but those sites aren't used in most DNA studies of North Africa. For example, uan muhuggiag hasn't been sampled yet. So suffice today, the folks you see on other forums are only following the lead of the 'mainstream' scientists. Even though the mainstream is currently using more scientific data and facts to back their models, they havent really moved much from the "bad old days" of overt racism in science. For all intents and purposes we are still talking about the "hamitic race" or "brown race" theories when it comes to the settlement of North Africa. Of course through int the concept of "Basal Eurasian" and "EEF" and you only get a more muddied picture. [/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