well yeah it's strange: because it wasn't an argument: it was me getting puzzled about the way the thread was going; either way, I should have been more clear, and careful. especially since you put it that way. to be clear, I was only addressing the methods used, not the conclusion. I wasn't trying to imply anything untoward.
Originally Posted by Ironduke
strictly speaking, it wasn't really aimed at you. It was more a comment on the way some people were going about this: I was expecting a more disinterested discussion. if it came across as insincere to you accordingly, I'm sorry. I'll be more careful next time.
EDIT: for the record: I really liked the genetic stuff
@ unbreakable: read my post in full: I think you will get what I'm aiming at: it isn't so much what you're citing, or how much (and no, there's no such thing as too much), it's how you're using it. it will do you no good to use neutral traits in studying appearance, and you run into sampling problems with the artwork.
as to the analysis? it is pretty clear that this only goes as far as the middle kingdom--if you are correct. there is a break in continuity in the New Kingdom (that's according to the paper proper), caused by migration (starting I assume with the Hyksos). This would mean, at least for the mod, that Egyptians will not look like they did in say, the Old or middle kingdoms.
Bookmarks