In article <dfmit3p6ijv1hffc5ep0v452k0u8qofr5f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
toto <scarecrow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 12 Mar 2008 16:16:08 -0400, hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman
>Rubin) wrote:
>>I am quite well versed in history. None of the Babylonians,
>>Aztecs, or with few exceptions Egyptians was negroid.
>How do you explain the fact that the language of the pharaohs was
>unambiguously African. It descended from proto-Afroasiatic, an extinct
>language spoken in Ethiopia before 10,000 BC.
As to what language was spoken where before 3500 BCE
we have little knowledge. There are major disputes
about where Indo-European started. Unless we can
develop time travel to the past, such questions will
go unanswered.
As to where Afroasiatic started, it is by no means
clear. More likely is the northern Sahara when it
was fertile, about the time indicated. Ethiopia
is contraindicated because the language spoken there
is definitely Semitic, and not well related to the
African part of Afroasiatic. However, this could
be due to an invasion from Arabia, with the language
of the small number of invaders taking over.
>How do you explain the Two Brothers, found in a single tomb. One mummy
>was pronounced "negroid" by examining anatomists, the other
>"caucasoid." Yet inscriptions made clear they were siblings.
Possible explanations are easy; any educated
individual should be able to come up with at
least three.
>I suspect you have studied a history that was edited by white men.
History requires writing of some kind. Some
prehistory, where there were edifices of some
kind, may also be close. Histories were
written by Orientals, Indians (from India),
and those of various shades of "white"; I
am including Egyptian.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
