Talk:Dynastic race theory

message: ^Can someone please quote where redford says what the statement says, it seems like original research and possible twisting of what was said since it contradicts its self from the same source and if it isn't that big of an issue, the "however" part is a weasel word and makes it seem as if this is still hotly debated and would render that entry redundant, please provide a quote. That's all I ask..Taharqa 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you desire a quote, I advise you go to your local library and get a copy of the book in question. It is not the business of people who have read the book to prove to people who have not what the book actually says. I, for my part, have explained at length to you why the material is not contradictory. The Dynastic race theory is a theory of Statecraft. The belief that a dynastic race created the Egyptian state is debunked. However, this does not mean that there was not noticable trade and even possible, though very small, migrations of people during the Naqada II - Uruk III period. This is what Reford says over about four pages. If you please to disagree about what he actually says, you are obligated to read it yourself. Thanatosimii 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: One, "however" is not a weasel word, it's a simple negative conjunction. Two, significant is used because said contact, if it happened, would be the source of several significant changes in the material culture, i.e. it shows up in archaeology and had a long term effect on the egyptian civilization. Once again, you haven't got any right to complain about a source which you refuse to read yourself. Editors cannot simply barge into other articles and demand that people prove that a book actually says somthing, because they believe what is said to be "fallacious."  Thanatosimii 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Three, "contact" and "influence" are different. Redford argues one, and does not argue the other. Now who's misrepresenting the source? Thanatosimii 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redford

message: I'm typing from a book, not cutting and pasting, so apologies for the typos. pages 17-23, selected quotes.
"Be that as it may, there can be no questioning the fact that the Gerzean displays numerous cultural features that are not the products of autochthonous development, but which have all the earmarks of having been introduced from the outside suddenly. (Of the voluminous literature on this subject, one might consult as convenient compediums H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East, Baumgartel, CAH3 1 chapter 9), W.S. Smith and W.K. Simpson, The Art and Archetecture of Ancient Egypt, Trigger, Ancient Egypt, Aldred, Egypt, 31ff.) ... Thanks to the German excavations at Warka in Iraq and the French excavations in Iran, convincing parallels to most of these new features can be found in that region of western Asia dominated by the late Uruk culture of Mesopotamia. Moreover, in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley and southwest Iran, the cultural evolution that produced these forms and motifs can be traced back over centuries of indicenous development, whereas in Egypt ther eare no antecedents. Few would dispute, therefore, the obvious conclusion that we are dealing with the comparativly sudden importation into Egypt of ideas and products native to Mesopotamia. ... Although it is perhaps premature to arrive at conclusions, the evidence for contact with Mesopotamia is more extensive and specific than can be accomodated by a theory of intermittent and casual trade. It would seem that besides trade items, a human component of alien origin is to be sought in the Gerzean demography of Egypt. This is not to resuscitate the moribund "dynastic race" theory, but we should be careful not to misread the evidence or ignore its real weight."
I'd still advise you read the whole thing if you are interested in this time period. What I cut out were the specific lists of evidences. Or you could read from his included reading list. Additionally, there is some somewhat dated material in the first volume of the Cambridge Ancient History, and some up to date stuff in Shaw's History of Ancient Egypt.
Pay particular attention to "no questioning," "voluminous literature" "Few would dispute ... obvious conclusion ... importation into Egypt." Thanatosimii 06:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quote you wanted, since you asked nicely. 

message: The modern minority theories needs attention, preferably by the one who wrote it. It cites four persons in sucession, of which two are long dead Egyptologists, one is a modern crackpot, and another is a modern layperson. The former two should go in the Origins section, but I can't sort out which authors made which arguments, given the rest of the paragraph just says "they also point out" without distinguishing which author pointed out what. Beyond this, the kind of observations in that paragraph do not necessarily belong under the heading "minority" at all. Egyptology has rejected the position that the kings and the state were Mesopotamian, not that the culture borrowed from Mesopotamia. Where have these suggestions been published, and how did academia receive them? Thanatosimii (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not write this, but as a start have reorganized the lead to at least separate the older proponents from the modern. This section does need to address the ideas of the particular authors and provide sources, and when I have the time I might jump back here and give it a whirl.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Minority Theories 

message: Worth noting that the recent DNA analysis of Tutankhamun showed that he shared his DNA with half of European men, Proving conclusively that he wasnt fully Egyption/African by descent. Having lived around 1300 BC that points to a very long period of rule by an invading aristocratic elite from outside Africa. --94.31.12.194 (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA Evidence supports Theory 

message: Why does this section even exist? doesn't even explain anything, just that this guy is offended by that theory  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.38.67.59 (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Afrocentrism