- May 2016
Even if I consider myself a Eurocentric (meaning for me that the centre of my point of view is in Europe), or more correctly a Portucentric, I think that for the historiocentrics, the controversy is minimal. Egypt had their own society and was attacked/invaded many times in their long history, from the West by the Libyans, from East by Asians, from the North by raids of Peoples that for the historiography are known as Sea Peoples, and from the south by Nubians. From all the ruling dynasties one was Nubian. As far as I know, many of these invaders are depicted in the iconography, as well as their skin colours. The Egyptians, the Libyans and the Nubians are by definition Africans, and all seem quite distinct. The Sea Peoples and the Asians aren’t.The controversy is ethnic. Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics have been fighting for years about the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians.
Didn’t knew that the SNP site has photos and videos. Went there one or two times.I would love to do so. However, if I was to do so, I would post SNP data, and genetic isn't allowed on this forum.
There are threads about the theme, you can read them. Genetics is just one more tool in history, not even the most relevant. But I reiterate that it is not unwise to make comments based on lack of knowledge.I simply guessed that genetic create a lot of controversy when discussed. I have seen on various forums people mis-using haplogroups to claim the history of other peoples, which sometimes may create low-quality discussions. However, I don't see why it would be more problematic than historical accounts in general.