R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> Hi Lee,
> Trying hard to agree with the suggestions made
> using the results of the study. I would be remiss
> not to say there was _some_ influence from the
> Middle East region .. same for Sub-Saharan. But
> the major formation of the ancient Egyptian
> culture is Nilotic. QED.
And where do you think this non-black African Nilotic stock originally came from? Curiously, human activity along the Nile between roughly 9,000-6,000BC was surprisingly sparse and what little has been found bears little to no resemblance to the later predynastic cultures that began migrating to Egypt around 5,500-5,000BC. To quote Romer:
Yet the Neolithic Revolution did not originate within the orbit of the River Nile. At the time that the Faiyum farmers were sowing their first crops, other farmers to the north and east [of Africa], had been employing the same techniques of cultivation for at least five thousand years. Nor were the Faiyum farmers crop's nor were their domestic animals indigenous to Egypt, or indeed to any part of Africa: not their cattle, not their sheep or goats; not their emmer, wheat or barley seed. Even the design of their flinted sickles had been imported. Their grain bins, too, with their muddy linings and their domestic baskets, were of a type that had long been made in the Levant. And though the reeds and rushes use to make their gain baskets are native to the marshes of the Nile, some of the abrasive fibers which were used to bind them together had been cut from palm trees; and these too appear to have been imported into Egypt from Southern Mesopotamia....
It is hardly surprising, then, that the Faiyum farmer's pottery also has alien origins; that the processes of tempering the clay with chopped reed, and of burnishing and slipping the finished wares also appear to have come from the Levant and ultimately, also, from the region know as the Gezira-the "Island"-the area, that is, between the upper Tigris and Euphrates river systems which is now divided between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq.
Much more where that came from.
I think you are confusing the issue as at face value the DNA study is not meant to conflate the idea Mesopotamian Elite were responsible for the formation of the Dynastic state, per se', but is rather confirmation, already established archaeologically, of the Levantine/greater Mesopotamian origin of the very Nilotic peoples which you speak which further speaks to the long standing hydraulic relationship between these two regions that lasted long after the formation of the Dynastic state.
> First, the diagram note claims 'heritage'. This is
> a false equation to DNA.
I took it to mean in context "genetic heritage".
> People may have
We know that they did. No "may".
> but if we want to conclude the brought
> their culture, we need to find the cultural
As noted above, predynastic history is replete with such examples of varying degrees which extend through the formation of the Dynastic state. Some more direct, some material most notably the use of large amounts of cedar wood from Byblos which in and of itself is proof of such cultural and/or trade relationships.
> Second, a study that looks at period
> between New Kingdom and the late throes of the
> empire should never be used to equate it with
> prehistoric sources.
As I said to Laird who raised this same concern, unless one is of the mind the AE of the NK were genetically replaced of course it should be.
> Then there are the pictures you show, however, I
> could as easily say some figures are reminiscent
> of East-Asian attributes (eg., eyes of Akhenaten).
> We shouldn't be using facial attributes to confirm
> nor deny what group are the key creators of
> ancient Egyptian culture.
The point is not to be specific other than they are clearly not black africans which by default means they come from outside of Africa.
> Lastly, there is a massive obstacle to the idea
> Mesopotamians gave rise to ancient Egypt. It is
> impossible to separate it from the culture who had
> it well established in the 4th Millennium:
> cuneiform. People do not 'move in' without
> their language and writing system. And it simply
> is _no where_ to be seen in ancient Egypt until
> long after the old Kingdom, and even then is not a
> state-managing script.
If I recall, we spoke about this at length why this would be in private conversations. First of all, I have never suggested Mesopotamians ever "moved in", as in "took the place over", but rather this influence was garnered by the punctuated influx of small groups who increasingly took more direct roles in AE leadership and administration, part of an already established connection going back more than 2,000yrs.
Secondly, Egypt has been controlled many times throughout their history-the Hyksos, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, ect yet in not one instance did these foreign powers ever convert the AE to their language and writing or impose their culture, but was rather the other way around. To rule they became part of what was already there, not change the AE into what they were. The Mesopotamian influence on the formation of the Dynastic state would have been no different, if not much less as their numbers and imported resources would have been much less substantial.
Furthermore, the period this more direct influence would have begun was around 3500-3200BC, the protoliterate period in Mesopotamian history, which at that time they did not use cuneiform, but rather a basic pictographic system very similar to what began to be seen towards the latter part of this same period in Egypt. More importantly, however, is not necessarily the actual pictographs being the same or not, which is understandable to some degree they would not be, but the mediums for disseminating this writing which most notable to this discussion is the AE use at this time of tokens and cylinder seals which are clearly recognized as Mesopotamian inventions.
Regardless, greater Mesopotamian influence on predynastic Egypt and the formation of the Dynastic state is not an "alternative" argument and is something well documented and accepted for over 100yrs now. Where the disagreement lies is over how direct and to what extent this influence actually was. We can debate this at large, but there should be no illusion here as to whether or not such contact, whatever its form, took place which lasted well through the formation of the Dynastic state and beyond.
> So for the article to say there is no Sub-Saharan
> link whatsoever to ancient Egyptian culture and
> its very existence is as ugly as pure
> Afro-Centrism saying the whole thing came from the
Did I miss something? Can you quote somewhere where they say this?
See all above.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 30-Jun-17 20:13 by Thanos5150.