> I need you to clarify something. You propose the
> Meso-Elite came to Egypt within a time-span of
> about 500 years prior to let's say
> Narmer...co-inciding with what is known as the
Something to that effect.
> During those 500 years, the script evolved from
> pictograms (what you show there dates to 3500
> B.C., right?)
Yes, I believe it does. Not the "oldest" example, just an example.
> to cuneiform in Uruk and from
> pictograms to hieroglyphs in Egypt even though you
> propose that there was an administrative presence
> which would have maintained the script of the
> homeland, don't you think?
No. I do not think this was "government sponsored" administration, but rather a group of Mesopotamians who came there of their own volition probably first drawn their by trade. They brought the early system of pictograph writing with them, still in its infancy itself, and largely adapted it to incorporate local symbolism and sensibilities. As I said before, when the Hyksos, Greeks, Romans et al ruled Egypt they did not force the infinitely largely local population to speak and write their language, they learned Egyptian.
> Let me ask you
> straight up...do you think there was a
> Mesopotamian ruling class which commanded Lower
> Egypt and was in constant communication with Uruk
> and took orders from there?
> That's what I call
> administrative presence.
I fail to see how it is required this administration be "state sponsored".
> So one alternative explanation is that the
> prevailing medium to record script was not
> conducive to cuneiform writing for example and so
> papyrus won over clay eventually which couldn't be
> etched and imprinted.
This is a very practical explanation.
> Another explanation is that, which is what I
> suspect happened, is that the Meso-Elite was never
> an elite. They were immigrants who brought with
> them some of their know-how and mingled with the
> local population. Out came the White Walls. This
> is a better model to explain partial cultural
> imports as opposed to an all inclusive cultural
> invasion which I still don't see.
I am not suggesting an "invasion" either though there would appear to have been definitely some conflict. Regardless, the burials themselves are representative of this very "elitism" which is the corner stone of the rise of the pharaonic state. By definition they were "elites" who by all reckoning were the rulers and the line that eventually became the 1st pharaohs.
> In any case, if you want to prove/falsify the
> Elite theory I think you won't get around showing
> that specific Uruki genetic traits can be found
> in pre-dynastic royal human remnants. This is
> predicted by your theory.
The inhabitants of Uruk are not a "race" of people and represent an amalgam of Near East, Levantine, and Caucasus peoples, essentially a melting pot of regional ethnicity. The only prediction this theory expects to have is that the Dynastic Elite of this period would not be Nubian, i.e. not from Africa.