Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WRONG.
>
> Native Americans have stayed the same, as have
> many other peoples. The AE mummies seem to show
> the same range of features currently seen in that
> population.
>

You aren't being serious. The Native American "population"
no longer exists in the same form as it did 3 to 5 thousand
years ago, or do you need me to explain why? The overall
population of the Americas is not the same as it was
3-5 thousand years ago.

>
> What about Libyans? Aren't THEY African? Or don't
> they count?

What does Libya have to do with it? Libyans
are no different than any other population on earth.
They too have been impacted by migrations of populations.
Greeks have changed since the age of classical Greece,
influenced by Turkish and other migrations. British
have changed since 3,000 years ago, impacted by Germanic
and other interactions. Mongolians swept across Iraq
into Turkey and Eastern Europe and had an impact, along
with the Huns before that. India has been affected by
such sweeps of migrations. America has had multiple
waves of migrations, with some scholars speculating
that recent waves overtook the older populations. Africa
has had waves of migrations, from Eurasians in the North,
to various migrations of different groups in the South,
like the Bantu migrations. Asia has had migrations of different
types. There is almost no place on earth in which
populations have stayed homogeneous and unaffected by migrations
and interactions of some sort over the last 3 - 5 thousand
years. Egypt is a perfect example, as almost all scholars
have talked about the impact of populations from Eurasia on Egypt
since pre-dynastic times. That in itself implies that the Egyptian
population has been impacted by migrations of various sorts, both
from within and without Africa. Therefore, it is impossible to
say that they look exactly the same and have the same composition
of features as they did thousands of years ago. No they don't.

>
> Funny--the AE clearly saw themselves as different
> from other African peoples.
> They went to amazing artistic lenthgs to make this
> difference clear.
>
The Greeks saw themselves as different from other Europeans.
Did that make them less European? Egypt was one of the first
nation states on earth and they had a strong sense of
nationalism. Nationalism does not change geography and
Egyptians were still predominantly Africans derived from
other Africans. Or do you have some scholarly publication
that says they derived solely from non African populations
that migrated to the Nile producing a population totally unlike
any other African group? If you don't then do you have any
sort of scholarly article that says they "evolved" from Africans
into some non African group, I guess from Aliens then? The
articles I have read places Egyptian culture as primarily indigenous
to the Nile Valley and heavily influenced by the developments of
older cultures to the South and West. These populations weren't anything
but Africans. They did not suddenly change from being Africans
when Egypt became a nation state. Just like the tread below which
shows that they found rock art from 15,000 years ago in Upper Egypt,
do you think that advancements in culture imply a change in population?
Of course not. Native Africans have been developing towards organized
civilization since the first humans arose there over 70,000 years ago.
These developments led to Egypt as a civilization and are not separate
from it. There was no need to "import" such advancements as they
were already in place locally with far older roots than almost any other
place on earth.

>
> Therefore, Greece is
> > not "Nordic" or
> > NorthWestern European.
>
> No one said that it was. Unless you can't tell
> European cultures apart.
I can tell European cultures apart and like I said, Greece
wasn't like Nordic or Northwestern European culture
in 500 B.C. Therefore, comparing one culture to another
in a region does not change geography. Egypt is still
in Africa no matter what political system, religion or
culture takes hold there, whether it is African oriented,
European oriented, Asian oriented or Mars oriented. Egypt
is an African country. The populations may change, based
on migrations and interactions with people from other places,
but that does not change its location.

>
> No, BUT--and this is what you seem to be
> misunderstanding--Greece's
> influence over the rest of Europe is indisputable.

Europe as a whole was not as advanced as Greece and had no
similar culture to Greece until after Greece was dead and gone.
The fact that Greece influenced Europe is one thing, but it isn't
as if all of Europe was as civilized as Greece in the time of classical
Greece, because they weren't.


> AE did NOT have anywhere near that kind of
> influence in Africa. Its main areas
> of influence were the Mediterranean cultures.
>
> Geography has nothing to do with it.

The Mediterranean is a form of geography isn't it? Aren't you using
geography to make your point, which is that because of
the location of Egypt it was able to influence other cultures
nearby in the Mediterranean? That is what I mean by bad history
and geography. Egypt is no less in Africa because of the Mediterranean
than Greece is in Europe because of it.






Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2007 04:54AM by Doug M.