...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
E-P2 (PN2) unites Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by typeZeiss: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [qb] This is very interesting. Because, it most probably means that at one point all Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers were united, thus were in the same geographical location and they all spoke the same language. The whatever language spoken by the E-P2 carrier at that far away time. So they were at the same geographical location and spoke the same language (most probably). This by itself is interesting. [b]It has definitive historical/archaeological ramifications. [/b] If you want to push it a bit more. You can see how this fits with Obenga's classification of African languages exposed in the book called [i]Origine commune de l'egyptien ancien, du copte et des langues negro-africaines modernes: Introduction a la linguistique historique africaine[/i]. In fact, we already got the Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers here, all descended from the same language. Obenga's call it the Negro-Egyptian language. The only language family left is the Nilo-Saharan one. Rarely populations are formed by only one haplogroup (which can later drift). Obenga's of course already exposed the linguistic basis for including Nilo-Saharan in the Negro-egyptian language family. But other linguists, like Blench, also combines the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan family into one. They call it "Niger-Saharan" "Kongo-Saharan" language family. So there we are, the Obenga's classification of African language family supported by genetics and other recent linguists (for the Niger-Saharan part). This is another brick to add to the common origin of African people (postdating the main OOA migration). For example, something like the headrests, could be a physical representation of this common origin. On the most basic level, the fact that African populations usually looks like each other in a rough manner is another clue (in the sense that Europeans and Asians looks like each other too in a rough manner). If African populations would have been isolated from each other for a long time (let's say from before the OOA). There's no reason why they wouldn't have changed physical appearance like non-African poplations did when they left the continent during the OOA migration. Also, while admixture and the OOA bottleneck can explain part of the situation. It doesn't seem enough to explain how come African people (as other people like Europeans, Asians, Native Americans) cluster up with each other on genetic distance calculations. We can understand why Europeans, Asians and Native Americans populations cluster up with each others respectively. For one, they have their common origin in the main OOA migration. And they also have other period of (multiple) common origin to colonize Europe, East Asia and America respectively. As any people close geographically they also admixed with each others, so we understand why they cluster up with each others in term of genetic distance. For this to work with African populations, like Europeans, Asians and Native Americans, they also must have a common origin post-dating the main OOA migration. And this is what I just noted in this thread both genetically and linguistically. [/qb][/QUOTE]The Sahara was once green, turns dry in the east around 4,000 BC a little later in the west. So probably during the green phase everyone was in one geographical location [/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