...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egypt Africa Cultural Diffusion ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rain King: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Funny how Asar picks his battles. He calls out AncientGebts and others in threads he made for the purpose of calling them out. Then he poofs when his own source denies his premise of foolproof and universally applicable regular correspondences. To think you’re going to use a technique that was established during the study of one language family, and apply it to languages that evolved under different circumstances, and that you don’t have to study those circumstances because the technique's output is superior to common sense :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ... to the point that you start to think you don’t have to come out of your linguistic comfort zone and verify your results independently with DNA and archaeology. There is nothing scientific about blind devotion to a technique you call 'science'. That’s just self-deception and naive deference to a technique. Anyway, I think something else has to be corrected. [URL=http://blogttn.info/dspace/rh/6acrbmuuegx.pdf]The findings I alluded to[/URL], don’t say Tut clustered with a European sample. They say that: -Tut does not closely resemble any available FORDISC sample, and that -the sample that was closest to Tut was a European sample. So, a somewhat imprecise paraphrase on my part earlier. But the point still stands that the affinity doesn’t go with Bantu samples, and [URL=https://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session09/klales-2015-craniometric-variation-in-ancient-egypt-and-influences-from-the-east.html]seemingly random samples (e.g. Asian)[/URL] may show affinities in FORDISC before Bantu samples do. This could have been predicted already from the appearance of his mummy and almost all other Egyptian mummies. [/qb][/QUOTE]What the Hell is an "Asian"? An Indian, Han Chinese, a Semitic/mulattocized population, Melanesians? Secondly his skull was analyzed, and reported on over a decade ago (it caused quite a stir here). It was described as some form of "Caucasoid" (I believe "North African"). What we know about African cranial affinities is that outside of the "Niger-Congo"/Bantu generalized morphologies (called "Negroid") other African skulls had at one time been preclassified as some form of Caucasoid alluding to some theory of ancient albinos coming back into Africa and adjusting their prior Negroid affinities. Case and point the Nilotic African is described as having "Caucasoid"/"European" skull shape. Bantu's who have significant admixture with them have distinctive skulls considered "Caucasoid" as well like the Tutsi (around 1/5 Nilotic paternally) [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/73LvMVKz97yuI9stKwll-kPREm4uKVZkTyFgavQ0ZzC9-Ft8KEH-cBSJn3nrrLB84afkQHeuch3GkIXlOSl6zvaMy_Pd3DQFKtNJ-qBL7HdSKLACgDI58RTaUpqjFi3_LbeaTJnJsHJuqw[/IMG] His skull looks like a mixture of Bantu and a Nilotic element. His cultural affinities show that he sported the noted collars sported by Bantu and Nilotic ethnic groups. [IMG]https://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/pharaons/toutankhamon/photo/tta_titre.jpg[/IMG] What "archaeology" or "linguistic" would you say correlates with cranial affinity with Asians? [/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