ANCIENT EGYPT: LAND BEFORE PHARAOHS

[anansi]

ANCIENT EGYPT: LAND BEFORE PHARAOHS REVEALED IN VILLAGE TWO THOUSAND YEARS OLDER THAN GIZA PYRAMIDS.


Archaeologists have discovered the remains of a village that dates back some 2,500 years before the Giza pyramids were built, the Associated Press has
reported.
In fact, the Neolithic village found in Tell el-Samara, about 85 miles north of Cairo, is one of the oldest ever unearthed in the Nile Delta, Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities stated.

The village predates the pharaohs by about 2,000 years. In 3,100 B.C.E., King Narmer is thought to have united the kingdoms of Lower and Upper Egypt. He is widely considered to be the first king of a unified Egypt. A few hundred years and two dynasties later, a pharaoh named Djoser ushered in the Old Kingdom.

The Old Kingdom of Egypt, which lasted from 2686–2181 B.C.E., saw the construction of the iconic pyramids of Giza and the Great Sphinx. Recently, archaeologists uncovered a small sphinx statue in the city of Luxor, on a historic road lined with the magnificent beasts.
After the Old Kingdom collapsed, warring factions competed for control of Egypt. Eventually, Mentuhotep II came to power and ruled for 51 years. He presided over the start of the Middle Kingdom, which lasted until 1650 B.C.E.

www.newsweek.com/ancient-egypt-archaeologists-unearth-neolithic-village-two-thousand-years-1101767

Keep an eye on this find folks, as " they " may use it to off set finds of upper Egypt and claim a Levantine primacy,not saying that's what will happen, but it could.

[zarahan]

Well you are right to be wary, given that on into the 1960s it was not uncommon to hear
Eurocentric academics and laymen talk about an "advanced race" sweeping in from the north
to civilize the dusky southern volk. We could also point to more subtle models, not as blatant
these days, as in the recent Abusir study, (which peer review heavyweights also criticize),
not to mention the various ones we have seen in recent years. But for the new readers,
various extreme or unbalanced undercover Eurocentric models fail for 5 reasons:

1) Serious students and researchers readily admit that the north was more of a melting pot as time
went on- its very location on the Mediterranean would bring additional foreign contacts, trade, war
captives, etc. Diop, van-Sertima etc back in the day did not "deny" northern diversity, as various
strawman claims make out. Likewise up-to-date serious folk make no such "denial" - scholars like Keita
and others accept the evidence on this. But that greater exposure and contact did not mean any sweeping influx
of outsiders that would transform Egypt population and society seriously, until much later periods.

2) In the north there were plenty of "dark" people, they were never confined "down south" as various
bogus EUrocentric claims put forth. In fact it can be proven scientifically for tropical limb proportions
are also found "up nawth" to go with cranial and archaeo-cultural evidence. Hence the dodge of
"white" north versus a "black" south fails. Using popular Eurocentric race models, yes, there was more
mixing up north, but there was plenty of "black" up nawth too, despite more mix and contact with the
Mediterranean and Palestine area.

3) The north had important centers of trade and contact, and a distinctive regional culture in some places
like Maadi, and more diversity due to contacts with the Medit/Middle East/Palestine. But the rise of the
Dynastic civilization proceeded from the southern hegemons. They may have been warlike, or they may
have arisen peacefully through regional trade and intermarriage/migration, but its still a southern primacy,
including the tropical zone which makes up almost half of the south.

4) Even if the common Anglo-American-Euro "race" popular model is applied, the presence of "blacks"
in the north, makes the north "mixed race." ANd to zero in on this using the popular Euro-American
"one-drop rule," the presence of "the blacks" would "taint" the north as "black." Furthermore, the
early millenia (things change) would see plenty of people viewed as "black" by today's standards in the
"Middle East." So labeling them "Asiatic" or "Eurasian" doesn't change the basic equation. Uisng these
popular models, a group of people with so-called "Eurasian" haplogroups coming into Africa would
still be black. And all this is using popular race models, widely accepted by Europeans, and created by
EUropeans, not something so-called "Afrocentrics" created.

It could be argued that these popular race concepts are obsolete. This is a fair criticism, but if so why do academics
and others keep using the "true negro" approach (under varying guises), or in some cases, keep downplaying or distorting
African biodiversity? THis problem is not merely an observation by "random bloggers" but appears in the
peer-reviewed literature. As long as the same distorted race models are being used in high places,
people in less rarified venues are equally entitled to argue for "Afrocentric" approaches (which are
very diverse as it is). The 24/7 distortion machines of assorted right-wingers (either in the raw online, or
from/in well-funded think institutions and books), as far as Africa, and the Nile Valley also make said folk even
more insistent on their alternative approach.

5) Varied features like narrower noses do not depend on any "outside race mix" as simplistic Eurocentric
models would have it. THe vast bulk of the northern population was indigenous, despite more outside influence.
Just living near a cooler zone like the Mediterranean climate for example, would over time,
make for narrower noses compared to someone deep in the tropical Sudan. Hence such varied features,
where present, and ALONGSIDE less narrow noses, are BOTH "African" AND "native" to Egypt and do not depend
on any "outside race mix" to explain why. THis tracks with Africans being the most diverse phenotypically
as credible science shows.

So was there more outside influence? Sure. But there was also BUILT-IN NATIVE diversity ALREADY in place
"up nawth" that does not depend on "Asiatic" outsiders. Just the fluctuating climate change of the Sahara,
pushing people and tribes back and forth from hot to cooler, wet to dry, and influences of a cool Medit zone
would cause phenotypic diversity IN PLACE over time, without needing any "wandering Caucasoids" to explain why.


These 5 factors defeat any attempt to gin up some sort of "northern" supremacy card...
Recap for the new readers..






^^Sad that we have to keep pointing this out in 2018, but as can be seen with the critique by Keita et al,
the distortions of a balanced picture are still continuing, and continuing in high places by folk with plenty
of money, academic institutional backing, and credentials. We have to keep pointing out and insisting on a more balanced
picture, again and again, if that's what it takes. And we have credible scholars and scholarship on our side.

[zarahan]

THe above being said, the north is cool. It had distinctive local styles and cultures, and it contributed
to the overall dynastic system inaugurated by hegemons from the south.

[melanitex]

Sept 4, 2018 20:58:17 GMT -5 zarahan said:

^^Sad that we have to keep pointing this out in 2018, but as can be seen with the critique by Keita et al,
the distortions of a balanced picture are still continuing, and continuing in high places by folk with plenty
of money, academic institutional backing, and credentials. We have to keep pointing out and insisting on a more balanced
picture, again and again, if that's what it takes. And we have credible scholars and scholarship on our side.

Absolutely man, that study almost had me until I did more digging and found out it was basically . Not to worry though it's 2018 not 1950 or 1960. These dishonest scientists need to realise their isn't going to stick like it did half a century ago.