Markup /brabant/16001

Comment
Two scenarios of admixtures of the local population in northern Canaan, one without the Western European component and one with it. The probability of the first scenario, which assumes the local indigenism of the population, is very low (P-Value: 0.187). The probability of the second scenario, which assumes the influence of Western European migrants, is much higher, almost 100% (P-Value: 0.933).  

* The indigenist scenario is currently an academic consensus established by (((local scientists))) from the (((edomite))) state of (((Israel))), who have rejected previous hypotheses about European migrations to the Middle East:
>Material-culture historians such as G.E. Wright, K. Kenyon, R. Amiran and M. Kochavi, struck by ceramic changes effected at the end of the EB III and visualizing them as the product of migration and invasion, sought out terms that would express the transitional nature of the ensuing period: “EB IV–MB I”, “Intermediate EB–MB”, and “Intermediate Bronze Age”. Olga Tufnell, who also favored INVASION AS THE PRIME MOVER IN CULTURAL CHANGE, linked the “Intermediate EB–MB” to the European “Beaker Folk” and to Egypt’s First Intermediate Period, while coining the term “Caliciform Culture” for the period in question. The processual reaction to cultural–historical archaeology, embraced by local and anglophone researchers of the 1970s and 1980s in the Levant, included a healthy measure of indigenism; insisting that CHANGE WAS INTERNALLY or systemically MOTIVATED UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE, many archaeologists adopted the term “EB IV”.