...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Asar Imhotep's book Nsw.t Bjt.j
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] At the end of the day, the only test of linguistic classifications, is whether their predictions stand up to genetic and other evidence. Outside of linguistics, no evidence supports Negro-Egyptian. Negro-Egyptian is a construct. You can make false constructs in science (e.g. Multiregionalism, Out-of-Arabia, racial typology) if you just stare hard enough at isolated patterns in the data and use circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when you refuse to let your theory to be tested by outside evidence: [IMG]https://bittersweetend.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/circular_reasoning.gif[/IMG] ^Notice the closed loop: no outside information is brought in to bear on the issue. The bible is used here, to prove contested parts of the bible. That's no different from a suspect who says: I didn't commit a crime, so I have an alibi, because I said so. In the same way, Negro-Egyptian supporters can only point to the isolated patterns they've found in languages, to support what they're saying. I've asked many Negro-Egyptian supporters to bring in evidence from other fields, that independently, and systematically, supports what they're saying. They can't. And I know they can't: it's a trick question meant to draw out the weakness in their language family. As soon as they leave the comfort zone of their interpretation of linguistics (which I question also), they're confronted with hard realities in archaeology and genetics, like: [QUOTE]Examination of [b]African barbed bone points recovered from Holocene sites provides a context to interpret three Late Pleistocene occurrences from Katanda and Ishango, Zaire, and White Paintings Shelter, Botswana.[/b] In sites [b]dated to ca. 10,000 BP and younger, such artifacts are found widely distributed across the Sahara Desert, the Sahel, the Nile, and the East African Lakes[/b]. They are present in both ceramic and aceramic contexts, sometimes associated with domesticates. The almost-universal presence of fish remains indicates a subsistence adaptation which incorporates a riverine/lacustrine component. Typologically these points exhibit sufficient similarity in form and method of manufacture to be subsumed within a single African “tradition.” [b]They are absent at Fayum, where a distinct Natufian form occurs.[/b][/QUOTE] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021659928822 This distribution of barbed bone points, with a huge time gap in between appearance in SSA and appearance in North Africa (and even then, with morphological differences between SSA and coastal North African examples), would never happen if African populations differentiated as predicted by Negro-Egyptian. Genetics and archaeology are filled with such discontinuities. The African archaeological record shows only old regional assemblages developing in their respective regions, not a continental culture spread recently by Negro-Egyptian speakers from a single homeland. Negro-Egyptian cannot be reconciled with evidence from any other scientific fields, proving it's a construct that cannot survive outside of the narrow linguistic interpretations of its exponents. [/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