[tied] Re: Black Athena: The Afroasiatic RootsofClassicalCivilizati

[My apologies if this duplicates a message I posted hours ago, and
which Yahoo seems to have consumed]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:

..............

> > That's the Cavalli-Sforza chart from the 1991 Scientific
> > American article. It's seriously flawed, to put it mildly.
> > See, for instance, Jacques Guy's criticism on the Linguist
> > List:
> >
> >
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?

A2=ind9201d&L=linguist&D=1&P=2989>

> >
> > Brian
> >
>
> This lengthy meaningless critique just demonstrates that GEOGRPAHY

not

> subjective and in my opinion a rather arbitrary classification of
> languages into "families" is the main marker of where people have

come

> from.

How is Geography superior as a criteria? The purported genetic
difference between the Tibetans and their neighbors in south China is
as much a problem for a geographic approach as for a linguistic one,
as is that between the Ethiopians and adjoining AA speakers.

Also, there has been a great deal more genetic investigation since
1991. I wonder if an analysis of more recent data would result in the
same genetic tree. Does anyone know if these relationships as
published in 1991 are still considered likely, or have they been
superceded by more recent research?

Ned Smith