AIT, NEW genetic evidence

Paul Kekai Manansala kekai at JPS.NET
Mon Jan 10 20:01:40 EST 2000


"David Salmon (Kettenpom)" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Kekai Manansala <kekai at JPS.NET>
> To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: AIT, NEW genetic evidence
>
> > To classify the human populations of Asia 50,000 years ago as
> > "pre-caucasoid" is poor analysis and linked with earlier Eurocentric
> > racial mythology.
> >
> > In fact, given recent evidence that the out of Africa migration of
> > modern humans began during this period, the people could be more
> > accurately described as proto-Africoid. In phenotype, their remains were
> > closest to modern Papuans, Fijians or Australian Aborigines only
> > shorter.
> >
> > Since, it is likely that all the non-African "racial" groups originated
> > from this exodus, one cannot classify this deme simply as
> > "proto-caucasoid" or "proto-mongoloid" or whatever.
> >
>
> "Likely"?  What do the DNA or mitochondrial surveys say?
>

Likely.

> > Also, the linguistic and archaeological evidence does *not* support a
> > West Asian origin for Dravidian.  SUsing the standard techniques of
> > greatest diversity and least moves, the point of origin of this language
> > family would be squarely in South Asia.
> >
>
> The languages of 50,000 years ago are so far removed from the languages of
> the last 10,000 years or so as to be almost beyond study.  The relevance of
> population and language movements of 50,000 years ago to the question of the
> origin of Dravidian would seem to be nil, as you might agree?
>

No, not necessarily. Although the methods I described are specified at
any time period. The greatest diverity of Dravidian languages and the
central point of their distribution is in South Asia.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala

--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list