-
This text was very expensive but well worth it, they touch on some type of imaginary Proto Sahelian – Saharan reconstruction by Ehret, I will share some of the peer reviews concerning Ehret’s unscientific data but this text was donated to Kedika: Peer Review channel, it states, “At least since the later part of the early Neolithic and before, the cattle pastoralist in the southern part of the Egyptian Eastern Sahara had close physical ties with Sub – Sahara Africa”, (pg. 671). I suggest you put this in the archives.
1 Comment-
Indeed, other European historical linguists say clearly that Ehret’s reconstructions are completely ‘UNREALISTIC’, but this is a constant thing I’m observing, they make reconstructions based on fanciful ideas yet they ignore the physical evidence. For example, this text claim that the people of the Neolithic Egyptian Sahara are very physically close to sub – Saharan Africans (which in itself is unscientific according to Dr. SOY Keita) but yet, they do NOT use so-called sub -Saharan languages in the study to produce the reconstruction. I have to agree with Obenga, their linguistics are completely fanciful and differ completely from what we are trained in historical linguistic methodology as it concerns IE language family or the model in general, blatant bias research. The goal is to AVOID sub-Saharan languages but yet admit that sub-Saharans are the people.
-
