...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
whom?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sundjata: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [qb] No, "Cushitic speakers type" doesn't sound any better, because it is not the "scientific" response that I pressed for...[/qb][/QUOTE]Of course. What KoKaKoLa hasn't realized is that 'Cushitic' is a language group and therefore should NOT be used to describe a physical 'type'. By the way KoKaKoLa, as I said the native Beja language To-Bedawi now recognized as being separate from the Cushitic group. It may show some similarities in vocabulary with northern Cushitic languages like Agaw but grammatically it is much closer to Berber and Egyptian. Even the vocabulary is closer to Egyptian than Cushitic. [IMG]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6665/chadicblench.gif[/IMG] [/qb][/QUOTE]The Egyptian/Beja connection is definitely there. Toby Wilkinson and others are on to something in finding the roots to Egyptian civilization in the Eastern desert (Beja territory). No surprise Kendall and the people at the Oriental Institute think Qustul comes from the same tradition. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3