...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Nuclear aDNA Recovery; Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head.
» 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] Black Africans in East Africa did not originate in Eurasia. So called Eurasian genes in East Africa does not mean that Black East Africans originated in Eurasia. One piece of DNA doesn't mean a population originated somewhere else. [/qb][/QUOTE]You said they're "not the result of" Eurasia which is not the same thing as saying they did not get all their ancestry from a place.Okay so let's hypothetically assume the genetic data for southern Egypt matches the north, then what? What are you going to do with that morphological data that says they're black? Throw it out because it wasn't "African black?" [/qb][/QUOTE]Seriously? East Africans are "hypothetically" black? Thats the best laugh I have had in a long time.... That's good comedy. When you can show me the evidence the black skin in East Africa came from Eurasia then fine. Otherwise I can't take you seriously on this point. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb] You keep ignoring facts. If the Southerners were fighting the Northerners that means a flow of Southern forces and people into he north to take over. [/QUOTE][/qb] Didn't I tell you that the northerners were mingling with southerners BEFORE the mass migration of foreigners? Did you not just read them say that northerners had Levanite settlements indicative of that affinity which date into the predynastic? You aren't listening. I specifically said that morphological changes were starting in the OLD KINGDOM with parts of Upper Egypt. So even if there were Upper Egyptian forces coming to take back the north the "army" would've included admixed Upper Egyptians who were admixed because the NORTH had plenty of people who had distant ties to the Levant and was mingling with UPPER EGYPT. THEN you're just assuming that every foreigner who'd immigrated to Egypt AND their assimilated offspring just packed up and left. I mean hey, it's not like climate change wasn't going to kill them. The data doesn't support the absence of Levant. It's not just them doctoring DNA. They put Levanite settlements, pottery and CRANIA there too? When does all that start sounding like deNile to you? Why are the Abusir mummies genetically the way they are if it was "African" in all of Upper Egypt? I don't care about who was openly a Levanite. Their DNA says what it says. So why does their DNA say what it does? Why were there Levanite settlements in the predynastic with Levanite material culture and crania that had affinity to the Levant. Answer all of that. Answer why Upper Egypt gradually started taking on a more northern look. Go ahead. Complaining about the power of the south doesn't answer anything. [/qb][/QUOTE]What you said and what has been proven is two different things. I understand perfectly well what you are saying but none of it has been proven is the point. You keep arguing a hypothetical with no proof. Mixture and immigration into AE over time nobody ever was really arguing. I think you are missing the entire point completely. What I am saying is that the people making these papers ARE NOT SAYING THAT. What they are saying is that the AE were always EURASIAN to begin with. Your theoretical postulations are nice sounding like I said. But the fact is Southerners have been immigrating into AE since before AE. So you can't just pretend only one group of immigrants had an impact on AE and like I said, the facts on record about interactions between North and South consistently show Southern resurgence in power and PEOPLE over and over again. Again, while theoretical arguments sound nice, you have to prove that say Amenshotep III and Tiye for example were not truly indigenous card carrying African Egyptians versus continuously making hypothetical statements. Like I said there is no line of evidence for Levantine blood through Levantine queens being the basis of royal legitimacy. But there is evidence and lots of it for Southern Queens and southern blood being the basis of royal legitimacy. Those are facts not hypotheticals. At the end of the day we need all the data given all the mummies that are available and should be sampled. No need to sit here and continually deal with hypothetical arguments. This is silly. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE][qb]Show me how Ahmose Nefertari symbolizes some kind of KINSHIP and BLOOD influence of Eurasian women into the 18th dynasty. Stop making up facts.[/qb][/QUOTE]Ugh the fcking butthurt. Stop. [/qb][/QUOTE]What your butt hurts because you can't deny that fact? Stop BSing yourself thinking you can just arm wave facts that don't support you. It is a bad look. I am talking about proven documented facts you want to stay on hypotheticals. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [qb] [QUOTE]I didnt say anything about race. [/qb][/QUOTE]Sure you haven't :rolleyes: : [QUOTE]Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians. That it totally absurd and nobody is even claiming this in any of these studies. Again, the people writing these papers are not talking about black Eurasians in North Africa. When they say North Africans have always had Eurasian DNA they mean white Eurasians. That has always been the point. You trying to spin this into some nonsense about "black Eurasians" and so forth is silly.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][qb] And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying. [/QUOTE][/qb] If you know what they are morphologially, it doesn't matter what they're "ultimately saying" on race. This is what Diop was trying to get people like you to understand because he knew it'd get you sidetracked. He believed they were black Africans but already acknowledged that his point did not rest on whether or not there was a technical back migration. There is already so much data that says the south was morphologically "black" and there's so much data that shows an African cultural affinity. So someone who looks morphologically (black) African and culturally African with Eurasian DNA is perhaps the most you'll be getting from these results, even if they are the same in the early south. [/qb][/QUOTE]What do you mean if? These mummies are available. They have been studied. Why do you keep saying if and but as if there haven't been plenty of mummies already identified as being "southern" or even "nubian" in affinity? I mean you had the X-Ray Atlas of royal mummies saying this. You keep pretending that there is some 'missing facts' about black folks being in Egypt from day one. Your insistence on talking about hypotheticals what ifs and buts or maybes is just ducking the facts not addressing them...... Like I said, if what you are saying is true then all the FACTS should support it, not edge cases. U5 does nothing to disprove black African people being the majority population throughout dynastic history, just like L lineages in Europe doesn't disprove that most Europeans are white. You just aren't making any sense. [/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